Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Our Cap Issues, Free Agency, Retaining Our Core


DaveThePanther2008

Recommended Posts

First I want to say is Congrats to the Ravens. Maybe not the best team but clearly the team playing the best down the stretch.

Mr. Gentleman has his work cut out for him. Beason, D Will and Gamble really need to restructure and help us get under the cap. I would love to see us keep all three but I believe in the end we will end up letting D Will go.(Sadly) Beason and Gamble could very well agree to restructure. Especially Beason.

I think the Gettis waiting project might be at its end. I love Gettis's speed but if you are so injury prone that you are on the bench. Speed means nothing.

I have always been hard core on giving the young guys their chance to become the #2 WR we need. LaFell has be adequate but I think we need someone more dangerous. While D. Bowe might be out of our dollar figure there are some good options. I would like to see a WR addressed during free agency.

I think there are a few NFL ready DTs available in the draft and we could address that position #1 and a DB or OT in the 2nd.

Retaining our Core players is crucial. Kalil, Newton, Stewart, Olsen, Smith on offense, CJ, Hardy, Kuechly, on Defense. And I believe all of them are under contract for 2013. Of course Beason, Gamble and a few others are apart of our core but we need some relief from them to keep them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some great posts here this morning.

And why would a player NOT restructure?

Pay me NOW instead of later. Yeah that's the ticket !!!

An inconsistent or older player might not want to restructure. If you've got time left to get that one more huge payday at the end of your current contract but wouldn't / aren't likely to after the restructured deal? Lot of guys wouldn't be in a hurry to give that up without a winning organization behind them.

Also NFL contracts aren't guaranteed. They might restructure to push off the cap hit then get boned when they're cut before the big part of their contract hits later....and the guaranteed money is less than the money if they played.

There are reasons. A lot of guys do it but there are valid reasons for no wanting to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gross and Beason I think come back. Gamble will probably leave and i think D-WIll leaves. It'll hurt to see D-WIll leave the most just because of the way he played the last quarter of 2012. We saw those flashes of 08 in some of those runs, and the NO game he tore it up, but I think we need to look for a RB with similar abilities in later rounds. Stewart is no guarantee either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We simply need Gentlemen to "redefine" our core. No point restructuring and causing additional future cap issues to keep big names if they aren't part of the core going forward.

Jon Beason......for example, should not be part of the core. Luke is.

We are in bad shape not just in 2013 but 2014 and the future. You don't restructure and dump HUGE cash at someone who spent 2 yrs on IR who might be a OLB if he gets healthy again. That is Hurney magic and will create a potential bigger issue if he never returns to form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It drives me crazy that so-called Panthers fans don't even know the name of our GM. It's GETTLEMAN, not Gettelmen, Gentleman, or Gentlemen.

As for restructuring, players aren't "throw(ing) away millions of dollars" - they're getting the salary they would have gotten sooner through a bonus and extending a few years out to knock the cap figure down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for restructuring, players aren't "throw(ing) away millions of dollars" - they're getting the salary they would have gotten sooner through a bonus and extending a few years out to knock the cap figure down.

That is not completely accurate. The future years of a players contract are not guaranteed. If their contract value in future years is now significantly out of whack with what the player would garner on the open market, then players will often restructure for less money in order to continue playing for their team.

For instance, we may value Beason higher than a team in FA would (given the injury). If we request to restructure his contract, the lower contract that we offer may be slightly higher than he would garner on the open market (but significantly less than the monster contract that he signed). In this case, restructuring would be for less money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not completely accurate. The future years of a players contract are not guaranteed. If their contract value in future years is now significantly out of whack with what the player would garner on the open market, then players will often restructure for less money in order to continue playing for their team.

For instance, we may value Beason higher than a team in FA would (given the injury). If we request to restructure his contract, the lower contract that we offer may be slightly higher than he would garner on the open market (but significantly less than the monster contract that he signed). In this case, restructuring would be for less money.

Yeah, you're right, I forgot about that. But it does make sense for players like Beason who would probably be paid a fraction of what he would earn even from a restructure with the Panthers on the open market. A MLB with a potentially bum achilles, knee, and shoulder, a guy who's played, what, 4.5 total games in the last two years, isn't going to garner much on the open market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any of these guys restructuring. Would you throw away millions of dollars because your employer asks you to?

A restructure doesn't "throw away millions". You get it NOW instead of later, and in the form of a guarantee up front. No risk of loosing unguaranteed money (salary) later on.

And BTW, you can't restructure in the last year of a contract. $5 mil = $5 mil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Really? You don't see why a team can't draft a QB in the 1st round while then starting their former #1 overall pick over them while on the last year of their deal? It puts the team in a TERRIBLE place no matter how the season goes.  If Bryce sucks, you have to answer questions as to why he was still on the team to begin with, let alone starting over the rookie.  If he's good, then you run into the situation the Vikings were in last offseason with sticking with the rookie contract or the the guy who just performed instead of said young QB. It's one thing when teams keep a vet around as a bridge QB, it's something entirely different when that QB is still only in their mid 20's and was taken #1 overall by that team.   That just doesn't happen and not sure it ever has in NFL history before.
    • What is the alternative? - BY, will not play for less then his perceived contract (just like Cam Newton did). So you pay him top of market as befitting a 1st round, Heisman winning, playing birthing QB would get. Or you cut him. - Then we are forced to either sign a stop gap QB / previously failed QB and try to fix him or you spend a 1st round pick and draft a guy, basically resetting the team.  The reality is that we all want a top 5 QB. The problem is there are only 5 of those guys in the world and drafting, even #1 overall doesn't guarantee that.  The other problem is the NFL market. Young QB get paid. Even an average, young QB gets top of market deals. I know a lot of people here think we could sign him to an 'average QB contract' but thats not reality. Didnt happen with Cam wont happen with BY.  So we could let this season flush out and he is again a middling QB. But then we cut and restart or accept it is what it is (including compensation) and build a team around what we have.  My money is on the latter. 
×
×
  • Create New...