REPORT: Panthers turned down trade offers for Brian Burns from at least 5 teams

[Mr Mojo Risin]

48 minutes ago, countryboi said:

Im ok with this, people obsess trading known assets for imaginary players, at some point you need to develop and pay your players and stop acting like a farm system for the 49ers.

What if the "known asset" you're referring to plays like an imaginary player over 50% of the time anyways? I'd take a ham sandwich for Burns at this point if it meant not screwing this franchise with his "show up when I feel like it" play for the next 5+ years. Fitterer needs to be fired. That's all there is to it.

[CRA]

29 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Okay, first things first, the people saying he's going to walk and we're going to get nothing/compensatory for him just need to stop, that's just flat out pure ignorance or stupidity, your which you'd rather be called.

What did we get for Julius Peppers?

What did we get for Star Lotulelei? 

What did we get for Josh Norman? 

Those were all elite at the time they walked out the door and we got diddly.  

And there are plenty of guys that we let play elsewhere too and got nothing in return for them too.  Because of management of things we got nothing for Panther HOFers like Steve Smith, Cam Newton, etc.   Poorly managed. 

History matters.  It’s why we study it. So you are aware of what has happened and can again.  And it’s safe to say, this is already on a rocky pathway.  And we aren’t unique.  Players walk all the time with teams getting nothing.  I mean to deny the possibility of such is well….

[tukafan21]

1 minute ago, CRA said:

What did we get for Julius Peppers?

What did we get for Star Lotulelei? 

What did we get for Josh Norman? 

Those were all super stars at the time they walked out the door and we got diddly.  

And there are plenty of guys that we let play elsewhere too and got nothing in return for them too.  Because of management of things we got nothing for Panther HOFers like Steve Smith, Cam Newton, etc. 

History matters.  It’s why we study it. So you are aware of what has happened and can again.  And it’s safe to say, this is already on a rocky pathway. 

Star was never going to be franchised and I can't remember why Peppers wasn't tagged so I can't speak to it, too long ago.

The Norman situation was super unique, can't ever remember a team just pulling a tag at that point in the process and letting them walk for free, was very weird, but also a different GM.

But just that they turned down the trade last year and then again more this year, there is just 0% chance they would let him walk without tagging him.  More likely they put the non-exclusive tag on him and just hope he signs somewhere else so they get the 2 firsts and don't even have to try and work out a trade.

[countryboi]

23 minutes ago, Mr Mojo Risin said:

What if the "known asset" you're referring to plays like an imaginary player over 50% of the time anyways? I'd take a ham sandwich for Burns at this point if it meant not screwing this franchise with his "show up when I feel like it" play for the next 5+ years. Fitterer needs to be fired. That's all there is to it.

yall always lessen the contributions of Burns, while also complaining that we should have traded him for 8 firsts.

[CRA]

20 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Star was never going to be franchised and I can't remember why Peppers wasn't tagged so I can't speak to it, too long ago.

The Norman situation was super unique, can't ever remember a team just pulling a tag at that point in the process and letting them walk for free, was very weird, but also a different GM.

But just that they turned down the trade last year and then again more this year, there is just 0% chance they would let him walk without tagging him.  More likely they put the non-exclusive tag on him and just hope he signs somewhere else so they get the 2 firsts and don't even have to try and work out a trade.

Point is it happens.  At an often enough  rate given most of your players you draft aren’t studs to begin with.  And not just us.  All teams. Every situation is it’s own story.  There isn’t one path to why any of it happens. 

Burns situation is messy enough at this point where IMO you have to concede that can happen.  Probably not the most likely.  Grossly overpaying him is most likely.  

But there is also time.  And time changes what people think and wants. So next time they talk both could be in different places.  Peppers was a mix of that,  situation just got to a place Peppers no longer want our check.  He didn’t want to play here and be what we wanted out of him.  He wanted to play elsewhere at the end.  More can happen with this Burns thing the longer it goes.  And I do think it’s always relevant when a player has never had a winning season and what that brings into an equation  

 

[TheSpecialJuan]

The current Panthers roster does not have a lot of good players. why would we trade one of the few good players we have. 

[Wolfcop]

7 minutes ago, TheSpecialJuan said:

The current Panthers roster does not have a lot of good players. why would we trade one of the few good players we have. 

I see your point, but what if that "good" player wants to be paid like a great one? 

[tukafan21]

23 minutes ago, CRA said:

Point is it happens.  At an often enough  rate given most of your players you draft aren’t studs to begin with.  And not just us.  All teams. Every situation is it’s own story.  There isn’t one path to why any of it happens. 

Burns situation is messy enough at this point where IMO you have to concede that can happen.  Probably not the most likely.  Grossly overpaying him is most likely.  

But there is also time.  And time changes what people think and wants. So next time they talk both could be in different places.  Peppers was a mix of that,  situation just got to a place Peppers no longer want our check.  He didn’t want to play here and be what we wanted out of him.  He wanted to play elsewhere at the end.  More can happen with this Burns thing the longer it goes.  And I do think it’s always relevant when a player has never had a winning season and what that brings into an equation  

 

Even if we want to just move past him, we'll still tag and trade him after turning down trades at this deadline, let alone turning a good one down last year.

I know "things happen" but not tagging Burns won't be one of them, lot of ways it can play out, but short of him having a horrific injury that threatens him long term, he'll be re-signed or tagged, never will just walk for free in FA

[tukafan21]

20 minutes ago, TheSpecialJuan said:

The current Panthers roster does not have a lot of good players. why would we trade one of the few good players we have. 

Because we can't agree to a contract with him

It's not about wanting to trade him, it's about finding the best possible ending to a bad situation.

WAY overpaying him and letting him walk for free are both unacceptable situations, so if he won't sign a fair market value contract, then the only legitimate option we have left is trade him.

And at this point, I'm not sure he's taking a fair market contract offer from us, if he was, a deal would be done by now, no?

[Mr Mojo Risin]

38 minutes ago, countryboi said:

yall always lessen the contributions of Burns, while also complaining that we should have traded him for 8 firsts.

He plays more like a rotational pass rusher than a blue chip OLB/DE

[TLGPanthersFan]

29 minutes ago, TheSpecialJuan said:

The current Panthers roster does not have a lot of good players. why would we trade one of the few good players we have. 

“Good” player. At this point I wouldn’t even call Burns good. Mediocre maybe. Above average, maybe. 

[TLGPanthersFan]

13 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Because we can't agree to a contract with him

It's not about wanting to trade him, it's about finding the best possible ending to a bad situation.

WAY overpaying him and letting him walk for free are both unacceptable situations, so if he won't sign a fair market value contract, then the only legitimate option we have left is trade him.

And at this point, I'm not sure he's taking a fair market contract offer from us, if he was, a deal would be done by now, no?

Feels like Burns has had someone get into his head that he is a much better player than he is. 
I said it before. He would be a great complimentary piece on a great defensive line but he should not be the primary player you build your line around. 

[kungfoodude]

2 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Burns' camp has all the ammo in the world. Hell, I'd be shooting to be the highest paid defender in the league because the Panthers sure seems to value him like he should be.

I mean at this point may as well ask to be the highest paid player in the league.

[tukafan21]

5 minutes ago, TLGPanthersFan said:

Feels like Burns has had someone get into his head that he is a much better player than he is. 
I said it before. He would be a great complimentary piece on a great defensive line but he should not be the primary player you build your line around. 

I think it's his agent knowing the Panthers screwed themselves in negotiations when the Rams offer was leaked

I'd bet that information leaking out raised the cost for the Panthers to re-sign him by $5 million a year.

Once they did that, we lost all leverage in any negotiations with him, they know they either will get us to WAY overpay, or they'll be able to force a trade to a team that will only slightly overpay for him, but likely go to more of a contending team.

Win-Win for Burns whichever way it plays out