Cutting Jon Beason.

[Fan01]

I'm no cap expert but this is the way I understand it.

Here's Jon's remaining salary.

Year - Base Salary - Signing Bonus - Other Bonus - Total

2013 - 5,250,000 4,000,000 250,000 9,500,000

2014 - 6,500,000 4,000,000 250,000 10,750,000

2015 - 7,500,000 4,000,000 250,000 11,750,000

2016 - 8,750,000 - 250,000

http://www.spotrac.c...ers/jon-beason/

Keeping him will cost us 9.5 million next year. If we cut him before June 1st he'll hit us for 12 million. If we cut him after June 1st then he'll cost us 4 million this year and 8 million next year. This would save us 5.5 million this year and 2.75 million next year.

If we cut him next year he'll still cost us 8 million (which we could split over two years) So, in my mind it comes down to is Beason worth an extra 5.5 million this upcoming year?

I'd really hope he'd restructure but what's his incentive? He assured 12 million if cut this year and 17.5 if we keep him for one year. I don't see how you restructure this thing because there's so much money already and already a lot of years left.

Now, even if Beason comes back he's not going to be our MLB, obviously. And he's not going to be our WLB. Davis can be a pro bowler at WLB. Beason does not fit at at strong side at all. Read this article from Walter football about what type of player a strongside linebacker needs to be and tell me how Beason fits that mold.

http://walterfootbal...ogy234tier6.php

Strong side linebackers play the run. They had to be able to take on TE's and tackles or pulling guards. They are usually big, tough hammer who can shed blocks and tackle in a traditional 4-3 defense.

I'm not a big enough Football guy to know all the schemes and different personal combinations our Panthers run that might make Beason more effective for the team. If I'm right about all this (and I could be wrong as I'm no expert) I'm cutting Beason after June 1st and taking my medicine for a bad, bad contract. He's not replacing Keek or Davis. He way to expensive to be a backup and doesn't fit at strong side so we should just take the hit.

He's been great for us but this is the type of hard decisions our new GM needs to make.

[Argus Plexus]

Neat

[lightsout]

Restructure. You don't cut Jon Beason. Trade? Potentially, but I wouldn't, because moving him outside to rotate with Anderson/TD is only going to give us the strongest LB corps in the league. Why not have that, especially with a DL that is just average at run defense at best.

As far as Beason's "incentive" for restructuring, I like to think that Beason enjoys playing on this team. If that is the case, he will restructure. If not, we do what we can to get rid of him and get something out of him, but you don't just cut him. That is absurd.

[PhillyB]

it's heartbreaking but i think it needs to be done. there are other positions that must be filled to make this team a competitor. keeping around guys who aren't contributing based on their names and their pasts and who drafted them is no longer this team's personnel strategy.

i'd rather have that 5.5 million contribute towards a starting offensive lineman to protect our franchise quarterback.

[Marguide]

For the OP, the only flaw I see in your post is in the guaranteed money. Jon received a signing bonus of $20 million, and has been paid another $1.6 million in salary the first 2 years. The problem is he had $25 million in guaranteed money, so there is still at least $3.4 million of salary still guaranteed. So that has to be considered in addition to the unallocated signing bonus.

Edit: One other correction...when you talk about restructuring, you mention him already getting $12 million next year, so wonder where his incentive is. Don't confuse unallocated bonus hitting our cap ($4 million a year) with money he will receive. That is money he already got in his signing bonus.

[Fan01]

For the OP, the only flaw I see in your post is in the guaranteed money. Jon received a signing bonus of $20 million, and has been paid another $1.6 million in salary the first 2 years. The problem is he had $25 million in guaranteed money, so there is still at least $3.4 million of salary still guaranteed. So that has to be considered in addition to the unallocated signing bonus.

Edit: One other correction...when you talk about restructuring, you mention him already getting $12 million next year, so wonder where his incentive is. Don't confuse unallocated bonus hitting our cap ($4 million a year) with money he will receive. That is money he already got in his signing bonus.

I've always been under the impression that the only guaranteed money is the signing bones but like I said I'm no expert. If we do own him 3.4 million more it's even worse. He's getting 9.5 million next year but no matter what we do he's getting that 12 million in remaining bonus at a bare minimum. That's a worse case as far as money goes.

If we do end up keeping him we're going to have the most expensive backup middle linebacker in the history of the game or a guy who overcomes a lot to excel at the strong side. If anybody could do it, it'd be Beason. He's got the toughness in spades.

[rodeo]

I'd rather pay 9.5 million and have Jon Beason than pay 8 million and not have Jon Beason.

[dpanther69]

Hurney really did screw us. He definitely help created a overplayed unachieving culture.

[Marguide]

I've always been under the impression that the only guaranteed money is the signing bones but like I said I'm no expert. If we do own him 3.4 million more it's even worse. He's getting 9.5 million next year but no matter what we do he's getting that 12 million in remaining bonus at a bare minimum. That's a worse case as far as money goes.

First, look at the fine print at the bottom of the page you linked, and you'll see it reports a total of $25 million in guaranteed money.

Second, he's not getting $9.5 million next year. All he would get (assuming we do nothing with the contract) is his salary and any workout bonuses (i.e. $250,000). The $4 million listed hits our cap but he doesn't collect that money. He already got it when he signed his contract. That $4 million is the part of the signing bonus allocated to each year ($20,000,000 divided by 5 years). So there are ways to give him incentives to re-do his contract if we want. We could re-do it in a way that would pay him more next year in actual cash while reducing our cap hit. It is probably not advisable to do it, but it could be done.

[Kevin Greene]

I'd rather pay 9.5 million and have Jon Beason than pay 8 million and not have Jon Beason.

Don't know about that.

He has 19 tackles in the last 2 NFL Seasons.

Dan Morgan ring a bell?

If he loves Carolina as much as he says he does, come back on a cheap contract.

Seriously doubt he will.

[Fan01]

Marguide, I see what you're talking about and it sucks balls. Thanks for the clarification.

[carolina-chuck]

"NO!!!'" for cutting Beason52

[carolina-chuck]

I'd rather pay 9.5 million and have Jon Beason than pay 8 million and not have Jon Beason.

Yup!

[frash.exe]

We're paying that signing bonus money no matter what we do since it's money we've already paid to Beason when he signed the contract, borrowed from the future via Marty McFly Hurney