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!

     

Former Panther legend running for head of NFLPA

Fiz

By Fiz,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

KendrickPanther Apprentice

KendrickPanther

Posted
Posted

I like the 57 players. I don't really understand the 10% termination fee because right now teams are getting hosed by guaranteed money and under performing players. Is he suggesting when we cut Deangelo, we pay him 10% of his remaining base plus the guaranteed money? I think teams need to make it easier to cut players. If someone isn't playing up to their contract they should be cut.

 

I also think there needs to be some sort of QB salary cap. Unproven guys are starting to get $20m a year. Where does it end? If I'm the 2 down linebacker making $1m and I'd like to negotiate a raise because I'm playing well. But Cam Newton needs a big deal so you cut the Linebacker and plug in a 6th round pick....I would be irate. You could take the top 5 QB salaries this year and there is probably 150 guys making less combined in the league.

 

And everyone is going to say "well the QBs are worth it". Why? Because of rule changes. When the NFL changes rules to benefit QBs, it's not just about game flow, it's about economics. Defensive players become less valuable and have to budget for fines when they accidentally go high on a receiver. The only time a receiver pays a fine is when they taunt the Safety who tried to tackle them low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zaximus Veteran

Zaximus

Posted
Posted

I like most of that.

 

The franchise tag is pretty unfair to players as it is, but cutting one year out is a compromise.  Teams are abusing it at this point.

 

I "think" that if a team wants to save up money for a future year, they can, they just have to spread the money out THIS year to all the players on the team if they don't use it.  That doesn't mean the money won't be there for a player next year, it just means people can't cheap out in a season (like Richardson did) and put out a bad product and pocket the money.  It is incentive for a team to "try" to put out a good product. 

 

18 games is only there because that is what the owners would want.  Owners are afraid of losing the revenue from those extra 2 pre-season games so this makes up for that (be honest, there isn't a need for more than 2 preseason games).

 

I don't mind the Wilson rule or the 3 year rookie deal because after his first season, he should be paid more.  This will balance out the league more.  Seahawks can afford a lot more than others because Wilson is cheap and a gem.  I know this takes away from strategy but it also balances it out.   This means that a team (like us) that needs to pay their QB a big payday won't be at a disadvantage for a super long time against let's say, a division rival who is paying their QB on a cheap contract.

 

1 mill min isn't bad, but that is just a starting point, I bet like 600/700k would be a good middle ground.  These guys are risking a lot and could lose their career in a season or a game, combined with the fact that they get hit hard on taxes (no capital gains, blah blah) and what the owners are making it makes sense.

 

I also don't mind the fine change.  Those guys from decades ago didn't get paid even close to what guys make now and they have a lot of real problems from playing the game.  Charities have a lot of overhead/red tape so I think on a dollar by dollar basis it may be more efficient to help out those guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fiz Newbie

Fiz

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Maybe but a few problems. This will punish teams who find value in players as well as teams who set aside money to use later in the season. It also kind of assumes that owners are using profits for nefarious reasons as opposed to reinvesting it in the franchise.

 

I think it would also create strange player inventives

Obviously you'd have to have exemptions for late season additions due to injuries or whatever, but "finding value in a player" is stupid. Teams that get good young players have been front loading contracts forever (the seahawks this year) and teams with no one like the raiders are just overpaying on one year deals to veterans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fiz Newbie

Fiz

Posted
  • Author
Posted

11 seems ridiculous to me

 

No more compensatory picks for not signing your own free agents? I think its deserved to a team, especially when a player wants out of a particular system.

You only get compensatory picks if you lose more players in free agency than you gain, and like 90% of the time its a 6th rounder or whatever. 

 

They're not factors. The Panthers never get any. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Razeyfingers Newbie

Razeyfingers

Posted
Posted

You only get compensatory picks if you lose more players in free agency than you gain, and like 90% of the time its a 6th rounder or whatever. 

 

They're not factors. The Panthers never get any. 

 

Still there sounds like a scenario in there that needs to be covered. A "just in case this happens". Didnt we get a 2nd for Pep?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fiz Newbie

Fiz

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Still there sounds like a scenario in there that needs to be covered. A "just in case this happens". Didnt we get a 2nd for Pep?

Considering they don't go higher than a third, no. And we didn't get one for peppers because we signed more people than we lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...