tukafan21

For me it's about the Burns situation, it's casting a shadow over the entire team right now and it's all our front office's fault. We turned down 2 firsts for him, we lost all leverage, give him what he wants and instead of our best player being upset and moody, he'll be upbeat and bring endless energy to the rest of the team. But instead he's threatening to not play and it's clear that the entire team and fans are feeling the affect right now. Sign him or trade him, this can't go on any longer.

If he sits out, Fitt has to trade him, honestly I'd then make him inactive in week 2 and moving forward if he sat our week 1. If after all this and all that all about how we're building something special and he knew he needed to be there, he pulls this crap and holds out of actual games, time to trade him for whatever we can get, chalk it up as a bad mistake, fire Fitterer for not making the trade last year and just move on with our lives.

I've said for a while that we can't let him play the season out, either need to get a deal done before Sunday or trade him before then. Playing out the year is the worst case scenario for us and will hang over the team all season long like a dark cloud

If they're really just ironing out the details, then this not only needs to be done before Sunday, it needs to be done before practice starts tomorrow. There is a cloud hanging over the team right now, the defense in particular. Getting a happy and up beat Burns at practice tomorrow will be a vibe that will radiate throughout the entire defense, if not the entire team as a whole. Get. It. Done.

No, it's not, because it hurts the team more than Burns. First, the 50k I'm pretty sure only applies to players holding out during camp and/or only vets on their 2nd or later contract, not players who are still on their rookie deals or during the regular season. Second, the keeping of his 16M isn't a threat as he'd always show up in time to accrue the season, so he'll still end up with 4-6 of it in the end. Plus, he's going to sign a monster deal by next offseason regardless, he's not concerned with losing 10ish million this year when he'll then sign a deal with about $100M guaranteed. Again, we have no leverage whatsoever here.

That's not leverage, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. Bell is the only player I think that has ever done that, every other player who has held out has shown up by week 12 or whatever they need to show up by to get their season counted and generally ends up with the player walking away in FA or being traded at some point, they don't usually do that and then sign a long term deal with the team. Burns sitting out until then and showing up is literally the worst case scenario for us as it then can only play out one of two ways. And both of them mean we don't have him for 10-12 games this year (I'm not sure what week they have to show up by to get the season towards FA) which only hurts the team as well. 1. He completely balls out and because of that is able to get a contract above Bosa from either us or someone else (clearly worse than just re-signing him right now for $30 million a year) 2. He struggles a bit from being away from the game for so long but someone still offers him a monster contract because of his potential and reason he struggled because of the holdout (and they would) and we lose him for nothing The only way we're able to sign him next offseason for less than he wants right now is if he plays 17 games and really struggles while only putting up 4-5 sacks and that seems very unlikely. We have zero leverage on this one, none, absolutely zilch.

Burns having all the leverage is exactly why he doesn't have a deal yet, because he's really holding out for absolute maximum top dollar. If the team had even the slightest bit of leverage, they'd have been able to get him to come down on his demands a bit and the deal would be done. Literally the only leverage the team has is that he's under contract this year and if he sits out, he losses about $1 million per game. But even that is only minimal leverage as he knows how important he is to the team, we can't really afford to let him do that as it would significantly hurt out chances of winning games. Once we turned down 2 first and it went public that we did so, we never had even an ounce of leverage in this negotiation.

And everything you just said is more of a reason to overpay him right now. His price isn't going down after this season unless he plays 17 games and puts up like 5 sacks, which flat out isn't happening. Even an average season and someone would throw bags of money at him next year and explain it away as the change in system and getting him back in a 4-3 as a DE will unlock him again. Which full disclosure I don't think would even ever happen, I'd be shocked if he had less than 12 sacks this year (assuming he plays a full year) and I fully expect it to be over 15. For a guy you can sign right now for about 28-30 million a season, you can't let him go out and put up 15 sacks and become a FA as we'll then have to beat what Bosa just got, because if not, someone else would. Hell, if he did that and we franchise tagged him, I'm quite sure some teams out there would just sign him and fork over the 2 first round picks to do it. Just slightly overpay for him now and it will look like a bargain when in 2 years he's the 10th highest paid pass rusher.

No, he doesn't, not sure why you're telling me I'm wrong for a second time now instead of just a quick google search of Burns. He was drafted in 2019 and his rookie contract covered 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, with this year, 2023 being the 5th year option for first round picks. He has 0 years left on his contract after this year, if we do not re-sign him or franchise tag him, he is an unrestricted free agent when FA starts in 2024. When we're talking about possibly overpaying a guy to keep him from signing somewhere else, a guy going into his last year of the deal is the same thing as "him going into FA", particularly when he's threatening to hold out until he gets his deal. He very well could decide to sit out until Week 10ish to limit injury risk and just hit free agency in the spring.

No he doesn't, this is the 5th and final year on the rookie deal. If we don't re-sign him now or franchise tag him after the season, he's an unrestricted Free Agent come March.

So, how is that different than this situation? Burns is set to be a FA and most of the league is desperate for a pass rusher of Burns' ability. That's been my point the whole time, that if we don't sign him now and let him play out the season, unless he totally busts, we'll end up needing to pay him more than Bosa got just now to keep him. Either that for franchise tag him and then we have to deal with this all over again for another year.

Yea, like you said, there is just zero comparison to the Yankees (or any MLB team). They can spend whatever they want, however little or small, completely their choice and is generally based on how much money the team makes. The NFL pays each team $300 million a year from the TV rights, they then set the salary cap based on those payments, and then implement a minimum spend as well. This whole thing with that guy started by him saying because fans pay for merchandise and products from advertisers, it's like we're paying the player's salaries so we have a right to complain how it's spent. But he just can't seem to grasp how even though the NFL gets a stupid amount of money for these TV rights, the commercial cost to the individual brands isn't even a blip on the radar for them with how much revenue they bring in each year.

You have zero idea what you're talking about, I do this for a living with the brands that advertise on the NFL... hell, early in my career I literally worked on GMC's sponsorship of Monday Night Football. You don't understand how brand awareness campaigns work, you don't understand how media buying works, and you don't understand just how small of a fraction of a percentage of revenue these brands spend on TV commercials. You said you didn't read what I posted, but I laid it all out there. The cost of these tv commercials, while MASSIVE for the NFL's income, is the equivalent to you spending the pennies you find in your couch cushions. You're too hung up on thinking it costs these brands so much money to run these commercials, but it doesn't work that way, go read that post, I explained it all with actual real life revenue and advertising numbers from Ford. I also fully explained how they do care about ROI and they study it (I actually agreed with you on that in my post). They know they need to get their commercials in front of X number of eyeballs, Y number of times, so they pay what it takes to get Z number of commercials run. With how small a fraction of their revenue is spent on commercial time, the cost of it doesn't matter to them, it's about hitting those numbers and they pay what it takes to get that done. Again, go read the post you refused to read, it clearly explains how it all works, but if you don't want to believe someone who literally works in this field and for this brand, that's your choice.

I think you're getting too hung up on the brands "paying a premium" for NFL game commercial time and what kind of effect paying that premium has on their bottom line. I also think you believe those relative costs of commercial slots to be much higher than they actually are to these brands as well. The staggering amount the networks pay the NFL makes it seem like the brands are paying an arm and a leg for commercials 18 Sundays and Thursday/Monday nights a year, but that's just not how it works. It's kind of like how the money college's football and basketball teams bring in allow the rest of a school's teams to even exist since they don't make money. The networks sell commercial time in massive bundles, the ones with NFL games cost much more, that's why they pay so much to get the rights to the games, it helps them sell their "worthless" ad slots for more. Plus, the networks get more out of the deals than just ad sales anyways, but that's besides the point. But again, that "paying much more" is still a very relative term for the types of brands that run commercials during games...... Look at Ford for example, as I said, they had a $170 Billion a year revenue in 2022 and in that year they had a $1.4 Billion US advertising budget, that's 0.8% of their revenue for their entire US ad budget. That budget would include their marketing departments, ad agencies, costs to produce commercials, print, radio, outdoor, online, etc ads, and all that before even getting to the costs of the ad space itself. I've spent over a decade of my career working for Big Auto's advertising agencies and on the automotive accounts (I'm from Michigan), this is an industry that I know very well. When you whittle it down to the amount of money these brands spend on any TV commercials, even for the NFL, it's not even a drop in the bucket compared to what they bring in each year. It's literally probably something like 0.000001% of their revenues to run commercials during NFL games. This again is why you generally mostly see the massive global brands during NFL games, because to them, it's barely even a rounding error to run commercials during an NFL game compared to The Office re-runs. If the NFL was just not a thing, as if it has never existed, all of those companies would still bring in literally the exact same amount of money as they do with it in existence and them advertising during games. Ford would still sell the exact same number of cars, McDonalds would still sell the same number of burgers, and the same amount of people would still sign up with AT&T for cell service. They're not selling more product because the NFL is a thing and they get to advertise through it. But that doesn't mean they aren't going to spend the money to advertise during the games though, because of how minuscule that cost is to brands of that size. Getting the commercial time during NFL games versus not getting that time is basically the equivalent of you finding a couple pennies in your couch cushion for these brands. As you said, brands know the metrics about who needs to see their tv ads, what channels they need to be shown on, and how often they need to run, in order to maximize profits. So given the comparative cost to revenues, they just pay whatever the networks charge to get the time/channel slots they want. So if the NFL was never a thing, they would still get their commercials seen by the right people, the right amount of times, because their research has shown they need to in order to maximize profits, just like you say, we agree there. The only difference is without the NFL's existence, they might save a rounding errors worth of their TV commercial budget. In essence, the NFL exists as it does right now because both the league and TV Networks are smart and greedy. They know how much they can help the other make and know they can do so because the people paying them make so much substantially more themselves. All because of the number of fans who watch the NFL, but in no way because of how much money those people spend on those products BECAUSE of the NFL or the advertisements during the game.

Nobody is arguing that the NFL could be what it is without their fans, that would be asinine. The discussion is about whether the money spent by fans on merchandise and products from advertisers goes towards paying the players, which it doesn't, no matter how much or little they spend. It's only about the number of fans who watch, period. First, every team gets about $300 million a year from the TV deal while the salary cap is set off that and is about $225 right now. That's why no matter how much is spent on merchandise, absolutely none of it goes towards the players, that goes towards everything else to run the franchise and why some have better stadiums, facilities, perks, etc, than others. But I'm glad you brought up another American sport, because it kinda proves my point about why what we spend on advertiser's products doesn't matter either. First you have to remember, that TV money is paid by the networks, not the brands. The networks then charge the brands for ad space during the games just like they do for the NBA, MLB, and NHL. Those leagues all basically have the same group of advertisers, as they have basically the same target market as the NFL. More people amongst them regularly watch, which is why the networks charge more for the ad space during NFL games than other sports. Because TV ad space is sold on ratings, and ratings are based solely on eyeballs, not dollars spent. So the same group of people are buying the products, the same amount of money being spent on them by said group of people... but these brands are paying significantly more for NFL ad space than in any of the other leagues by a wide margin, hence why the networks pay the NFL so much to get those rights. Which is why for NFL games you generally only see ads from massive brands in the major categories like autos, phone, movies/tv, daily household items (your P&G stuff), as they're the brands who make so much money that it's a tiny drop in the bucket for them to spend the cost of the NFL ad space. The NFL is huge and as a collective bring in stupid money, but the amount spent by brands there is a small fraction of their overall ad budgets. Ford makes $170 Billion in revenue, AT&T $120, Disney $90, P&G $80 etc.... that is why those companies can afford to pay the NFL/networks good money for that ad space. Hence why, back to the original point.... saying the fans are paying for the player's contracts with their money spent on the products of their advertisers, is a fallacy. Those brands are succeeding with or without the NFL advertising, they can just afford to spend the cost of the ad space that the networks charge. If you want to say the fans interest in the game, sure, that's fair, but not their money spent directly.

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.

Either first or tied for first if Smitty were to get in this year. But I'm actually hoping Smitty doesn't yet, sure it would be cool for him to go in with Peppers, but I think it would be more fun for the fans if he went in the same year as Kuechly. Same reason as my previous post, Smitty and Luke are higher on the Panther GOAT list than Peppers because they spent their whole careers here (Smitty's Ravens years don't count lol).

Luke is the question mark for first ballot and that's only due to longevity (I think he gets it though) But Peppers was never in question, the only reason Smitty is the Panthers GOAT and not Peppers, is because half his career was with the Bears and Packers. He's 4th all time in sacks, I wouldn't need to know anything else, even the player's name, to know that person is a first ballot HOFer

Yet again, I ask... do you even actually read my posts or do you just see it's me, quote it and spew randomness? I literally said that to you last night, that we agree on paying him but that it's ridiculous to use the "players need to feed their families" argument when defending them holding out. But you kept quoting me and arguing random stuff that I wasn't saying. Go re-read the posts from last night, or even any post of mine on the Burns contract matter. The entire time I've been saying to just pay the man what he wants as we lost all leverage by turning down the 2 firsts and we can't afford to lose him or let him play the year out and risk needing to give him the biggest contract ever next spring. Here's the post where you argued with me about something I wasn't saying and where I directly quoted both of us saying the same thing, but somehow you couldn't realize it...

I'm fine giving him 30 as it won't be bad in a couple years when a bunch of other contracts pass it up. But if he's asking for more than that, he's being stubborn and ridiculous and I'd just rather trade him right now to say the Raiders for a First and Adams or a First, Second, and Jones. I want him here and am fine paying him to stay, but it's gotta get done before the season starts (or at worst after week 1 or 2). We can't have him sitting out and we can't risk him having a crazy season and then needing to pay him above Bosa's deal next spring, neither of those are acceptable for me.

Because we were stupid I still hate that trade, especially after giving Miles a decent contract. I'd so much rather have given up some more of our own picks in the trade to get Bryce than have the ones from the 49ers to use there. Just imagine putting CMC in the same backfield as Bryce and having his route running and ability to be a check down guy. They'd be a perfect match made in heaven together and would dominate the league for the next 3-5 years.

You're conflating how business works and operates with "the fans pay the player's salaries so they have a right to complain how it's spent" and they couldn't be further from the truth. Yes, the salary cap is set based on league revenue, which is based off TV contracts, which yes, are then also based off what the networks will be able to get from advertising money. But to say "we pay their salaries" when you buy a tube of toothpaste is a significant and rather farcical leap of correlation between the two. That same Crest commercial is also going to run on Real Housewifes of Atlanta. Are you saying when you buy that $5 tube of toothpaste, that you're partially paying for Brian Burns' contract as well as paying Betty Joe Sue's contract to be on that show? Of course not Brand's budgets for advertising on NFL games is solely set by the number of eyeballs that watch the games, not based on how many tubes of toothpaste the ads sell, because there is no way to ever correlate sales to any TV commercial. The brands who advertise during NFL aren't mom and pop places, they're global fortune 500 type of companies, the ones who are going to have massive sales regardless of how many football fans buy their products. You buy a tube of toothpaste from Target, Target bought that toothpaste from a distributor, the distributor bought it from Crest, Crest paid CBS and Fox for commercial time, CBS and FOX paid the NFL for the games, the NFL pays teams the TV revenue, the teams pay players. If you're seriously trying to say that you buying that tube of toothpaste gives you the right as a fan to complain about how YOUR money is being spent on players, then I think you're the one who doesn't understand how business works. I'm guessing if P&G spent $0 on NFL advertising, while maybe their sales take a small hit, they'd still be one of the biggest companies in the world. But they spend it there because they know it has a ton of eyeballs so it's a smart use of their advertising money that they'd be spending to place ads somewhere else instead if not on the NFL. Your argument about if nobody bought P&G products or if all NFL fans started to only watch soccer aren't real life scenarios. You were saying that in response to if fans spent $0 or $1 million that it wouldn't change how they spend, but I clearly wasn't saying ALL fans, it was individually. Your scenario would literally take almost every fan of the sport to just stop watching it, which is just nonsense. If I go out and buy $10 million of Panthers gear today, or even $100 million, it's affect on what we'll pay our players is literally the exact same thing as me spending absolutely nothing. Because teams want to be competitive, so they spend based on what the cap is, not how much merchandise sales they have. This isn't European Soccer to where those merchandise sales are what allow you to purchase players from other teams, where they don't have salary caps but caps on what you can spend based on what you bring in. And all that is set at multitudes of levels away from NFL fan's individual spending on products advertised during games.

Fan spent money is a drop in the bucket for the teams/owners compared to what they make thru the TV deals and what these owners make from their other businesses that gave them enough money to buy these franchises. Don't try to say when you buy that tube of toothpaste, that you're paying money towards your favorite NFL team because Crest will advertise during an NFL game. Also, whether fans spend a million dollars a year each on stuff or no money, the teams are still going to spend the same amount of money on their roster. They're not signing better players because a team sold more jerseys or beer during games.

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