Johnson restructures?

[carolina-chuck]

Ok why is Fitz coming up in all this? Has he demanded a trade this past week or something? I just don't see it. It's nice to dream and all. But the guy is getting old and he has big contract numbers. Just don't see it happening. Either this is roll over money for next offseason or contract extension for Cam or somebody.

He did say that he know he'll have to rework his contract next year.

[Panthers_Rake]

Its for Cam & Luke. Its gotta be. They both are up next year I would be very surprised if they don't do one now and tag the other next spring. at least I hope.

 

Far off chance we snag smitty back.

[jdpanther5]

Why (and how?) would we tag someone who will still be under contract?

[Frizzy350]

Methinks we are making room to sign Cam long term before the cap bump.

 

Regardless of how the Hardy court situation sorts itself out, he's not resigning unless there was some plan in place to give him the fat money tag followed by something like 6mil/year (which i highly, highly doubt).

 

Hardy's a great player, but CJ is what makes that Dline tick.  I don't know why, but when he's out they just don't play the same.  Even if Hardy is ruled not guilty he does have a history of being irresponsible off the field (motorcycle accident, pics of the Bentley speedometer, enjoys a wild night life).  Tossing the big bucks his way is just risky.

 

Hopefully Frank, Ealy or Addison can step up when he departs.  If not I'd be content with a combination of them over on that side, we still have plenty of talent on that line.

[Panthers_Rake]

Why (and how?) would we tag someone who will still be under contract?

 

Sorry forgot we used the fifth year on Newton, I was thinking they would restructure Luke now and tag Newton in the spring.

 

Its probably all about cam now then.

[Matthias]

Why does the restructure tell you that?  In a restructure like this the player isn't giving up anything.  The team is doing the player a favor.

 

It would be like your boss offering you your entire yearly salary in January.

 

With that being said I could see CJ wanting to finish his career in Carolina but there is a myth among some that players are doing the team some kind of favor in these types of restructures.

 

If anything, this shows that we might be more inclined to keep CJ for the duration of his contract.

 

You know I have always heard this said around here.  The problem is however, no player ever wants to restructure his deal.  If restructuring always helped the player, then why don't players restructure more often?  Some players have even made it known that restructuring their contract is an insult to them.  That they are insulted the team came to them asking them to restructure.  So I don't know if I buy it anymore that restructuring helps the player get his money more effectively.  At the very least if it's a deal where we are pushing money back a year or bringing money forward, you could release the player before you had to pay him anything.  Of course I could be wrong, but it's not like players jump for joy at restructures, which they should be doing if it was assured they will get their money.

[AU-panther]

You know I have always heard this said around here.  The problem is however, no player ever wants to restructure his deal.  If restructuring always helped the player, then why don't players restructure more often?  Some players have even made it known that restructuring their contract is an insult to them.  That they are insulted the team came to them asking them to restructure.  So I don't know if I buy it anymore that restructuring helps the player get his money more effectively.  At the very least if it's a deal where we are pushing money back a year or bringing money forward, you could release the player before you had to pay him anything.  Of course I could be wrong, but it's not like players jump for joy at restructures, which they should be doing if it was assured they will get their money.

 

Players don't restructure more often because teams try to offer these type of restructures as little as possible.  These restructures cause dead money, which the teams try to avoid.

 

Any player in the league would take a restructure like this.  Why would a player be insulted if a team wanted to convert non-guaranteed money into guaranteed?  Why would a player be insulted because the team offers them their yearly salary upfront, not spread out over the season?

 

I think you are confusing this type of restructure with a pay cut.  More times then not in a normal restructure a player doesn't give up money.  The team converts salary into a bonus so the cap hit can be spread out over the life of the contract.  This benefits the player because the money becomes guaranteed.  Also they tend to get the money as a lump sum at the beginning of the year, instead of being paid in installments during the year.

 

I'll try use CJ's situation as an example.  His salary for this year was suppose to be around 8.7 million.  This money was non guaranteed. To create cap space the team converted 7.8m of that salary into a bonus.  Now CJ has a salary of 950k but receives a bonus of 7.8m.  The bonus is guaranteed, this benefits the player.  The bonus is usually paid up front, this benefits the player.  The team benefits because they can account for the bonus over the life time of the contract.  This lowers the cap hit for CJ this year.  I doubt you can find an actual example of a player being upset over this kind of restructure.

 

I am sure the restructures that you are thinking about are when teams ask players to take pay cuts.  The media and fans tend to use the term "restructure" whenever a team alters a player's current terms.  Even when a player takes a pay cut it isn't out of the kindness of their heart.  They are usually in a situation where the other option is being cut.  Fans should view that as more of the player was cut then resigned at a lower amount.

 

When you hear about a player lowering their salary to help the team, more times then not the player really hasn't given up anything.  The accounting has only changed.