Panthers Ready To Shop At Tiffany's? Not So Fast.

[Nails]

1 hour ago, stbugs said:

All I know is that Newton can't get me down, all said and done, we should have close to $20M to work with when all is said and done with more cuts/restructures and rookie contracts. Berry would fit in nice and still give us emergency room, or maybe a Jefferson/Cyprien/Church and another mid-level guy, instead of 1 top tier guy. That and the draft have me really excited about 2017, Shula be damned.

Signing Berry alone would give this franchise a tangible and intangible boost that is unspeakable.

[panthers55]

3 hours ago, AU-panther said:

I often hear people say "guaranteed money is all that matters" which really isn't correct.  If a player plays out his contract the guaranteed money is irrelevant.  Guaranteed money comes into play when you decide to release or restructure a player.   Guaranteed money is leverage for a player.

 

 

 

 

 

Guaranteed money is the most important part of the contract which is why people say it is what matters. In this day and age most players don't play out their whole contract. As soon as the guaranteed money is up and the cap savings to cut them outweighs their productivity, they get the boot. Look at Tolbert. We cut him because the guaranteed money was small and even a few million in cap savings was worth moving on. Now if his dead money cost would have been larger than the cap savings to cut him even as a June 1st designation, he would still be here. What made the difference? Little guaranteed money. The salary can be manipulated  extended or restructured while the guaranteed money cannot and must be paid according to the contract that was in effect which is why it is primarily what matters the most and the reason folks say it is all that matters.

[CWORS]

DG needs to do some shopping for a LT and a SS! Tiffany's or somewhere except the dollar store! Jez just do some shopping! Hell take your wife and have her shop for you! 

[TheSpecialJuan]

20 hours ago, Saca312 said:

So, David Newton actually posted something that's well worth noting. Many on here are under the conceived notion that we would have a lot of money to spend, but Newton doesn't believe so. When considering who we likely are going to focus on bringing back, it may not be as much of a huge FA grab as many here hope.

Rather, it looks to be another off-season focusing on keeping our key guys.

http://www.espn.com/blog/carolina-panthers/post/_/id/24651/panthers-still-not-ready-to-shop-at-tiffanys-despite-more-than-50-million-in-cap-space

Very daunting to say we may only have $10m left over to spend in FA, not to mention keeping some of that for our draft picks. I was thinking about researching and posting on this, but David already did that job for me, and it's very daunting.

We may truly have another lackluster offseason with the way keeping our own guys is looking out to be.

So, I wouldn't expect big-name players like Berry or JPP to be anywhere near Charlotte, but guys like LT Matt Kalil, CB Captain Munnerlyn, DE Julius Peppers and WR Victor Cruz are likely targets if they're on the cheap. I'm hoping Cyprien is also on the radar, but I don't know if we can afford him.

Very grateful Gettleman has achieved us to have this much cap to use to resign our guys, but does give a downer considering how much of our cap they'd eat up.

[AU-panther]

3 hours ago, panthers55 said:

Guaranteed money is the most important part of the contract which is why people say it is what matters. In this day and age most players don't play out their whole contract. As soon as the guaranteed money is up and the cap savings to cut them outweighs their productivity, they get the boot. Look at Tolbert. We cut him because the guaranteed money was small and even a few million in cap savings was worth moving on. Now if his dead money cost would have been larger than the cap savings to cut him even as a June 1st designation, he would still be here. What made the difference? Little guaranteed money. The salary can be manipulated  extended or restructured while the guaranteed money cannot and must be paid according to the contract that was in effect which is why it is primarily what matters the most and the reason folks say it is all that matters.

I never said guaranteed money doesn't matter, I said some people claim it is the only thing that matters, which isn't true. 

Both the guaranteed and non guaranteed money is important.  Look at the contract that CJ signed in 2011.  How much of it was guaranteed at signing and how much did he actually receive over the life of that contract?  He received as much if not more money from the non guaranteed part then he did from the guaranteed so I would say they were both important. 

You are right that the amount of dead money often plays a part in when a player is cut but it is often relative to their salary which is often not guaranteed.

CJ didn't get cut last year just because he only had $4m in dead money, it was also because he had a salary of probably around $10m(don't remember the exact number).  If his non guaranteed salary was only $6m he wouldn't have been cut so here again they are both important.

Lets say you have two player and their contracts:

5yr/50m with $25m guaranteed

or

5yr/70m with $20m guaranteed

Very good chance the second one will cost their team more in cap space over 5 years than the first.  So is the guaranteed the most important here?

 

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, AU-panther said:

I never said guaranteed money doesn't matter, I said some people claim it is the only thing that matters, which isn't true. 

Both the guaranteed and non guaranteed money is important.  Look at the contract that CJ signed in 2011.  How much of it was guaranteed at signing and how much did he actually receive over the life of that contract?  He received as much if not more money from the non guaranteed part then he did from the guaranteed so I would say they were both important. 

You are right that the amount of dead money often plays a part in when a player is cut but it is often relative to their salary which is often not guaranteed.

CJ didn't get cut last year just because he only had $4m in dead money, it was also because he had a salary of probably around $10m(don't remember the exact number).  If his non guaranteed salary was only $6m he wouldn't have been cut so here again they are both important.

Lets say you have two player and their contracts:

5yr/50m with $25m guaranteed

or

5yr/70m with $20m guaranteed

Very good chance the second one will cost their team more in cap space over 5 years than the first.  So is the guaranteed the most important here?

 

This appears to be an apple and oranges debate. We are not arguing the same thing. I said that the guaranteed amount of the contract is the most important because it gets paid no matter what happens. It can't be altered changed or renegotiated unless the amount goes up. Versus nonguaranteed money which can be voided for any reason.  What determines how long we keep a player before we can cut them. Dead cap money which is your guaranteed money not yet accounted for in the cap.

Your point seems to relate more to whether a total contract outlay of money for a player is usually composed more of guaranteed money or the remaining contract. Or in others words is the guaranteed money more than 50% of the total contract. That is a totally different question more related to whether players play out their contracts or based on how long they can stay productive.  If CJ got most of his contract then he earned it but we only had the option to cut him when his dead cap space went down. Not necessarily the minute it went down but it certainly increased the cap savings and made it easier to sign him back . If guaranteed money weren't most important then it wouldn't be the sticking point that holds up most contracts. This shouldn't even be a debate.

[DeeJay]

David Newton is pure trash, I dont know how we're stuck with his stupid ass

[Panthers8969]

good article, minus the mike remembers part. 5.5mil a year lol

[pantherj]

If Remmers gets that money I'm done.

[AU-panther]

30 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

This appears to be an apple and oranges debate. We are not arguing the same thing. I said that the guaranteed amount of the contract is the most important because it gets paid no matter what happens. It can't be altered changed or renegotiated unless the amount goes up. Versus nonguaranteed money which can be voided for any reason.  What determines how long we keep a player before we can cut them. Dead cap money which is your guaranteed money not yet accounted for in the cap.

Your point seems to relate more to whether a total contract outlay of money for a player is usually composed more of guaranteed money or the remaining contract. Or in others words is the guaranteed money more than 50% of the total contract. That is a totally different question more related to whether players play out their contracts or based on how long they can stay productive.  If CJ got most of his contract then he earned it but we only had the option to cut him when his dead cap space went down. Not necessarily the minute it went down but it certainly increased the cap savings and made it easier to sign him back . If guaranteed money weren't most important then it wouldn't be the sticking point that holds up most contracts. This shouldn't even be a debate.

Some people say guaranteed money is the only thing that matters which I said wasn't true,

Some people also say guaranteed money is what matters the most, which is isn't entirely true either.  Absolute statements like that are misleading to those that don't really understand the cap.

Saying that guaranteed money is the most important thing would have someone believe that a 5yr/70m deal with $20m guaranteed is better for the team then a 5yr/50m deal with $25m guaranteed which isn't true in a lot of cases.

Saying that guaranteed money is an important part of a contract would be a more accurate statement.  Saying that guaranteed money determines the teams flexibility with a certain player would be an accurate statement.

[panthers55]

8 hours ago, AU-panther said:

Some people say guaranteed money is the only thing that matters which I said wasn't true,

Some people also say guaranteed money is what matters the most, which is isn't entirely true either.  Absolute statements like that are misleading to those that don't really understand the cap.

Saying that guaranteed money is the most important thing would have someone believe that a 5yr/70m deal with $20m guaranteed is better for the team then a 5yr/50m deal with $25m guaranteed which isn't true in a lot of cases.

Saying that guaranteed money is an important part of a contract would be a more accurate statement.  Saying that guaranteed money determines the teams flexibility with a certain player would be an accurate statement.

Your example is too nebulous to evaluate. Could a 5 year 50 million dollar contract with 25 million guaranteed be better than a 5 year 70 million contract with only 20 million guaranteed?  It could be but you are giving out 50% of the contract in guarantees and depending on what the market price is and how old the player is at the time will go a long way to determine the contract worth. Let's say  the 5 year 70 million dollar contract is backloaded with the last year being a salary of 25 million and the other 50 million dollar contract contract is front loaded and the last year salary is only 5 million, then the 5 year 70 million dollar contract would be the better deal until you got to year 5. Most backloaded big cap in the last year contracts are never intended to be earned. 

Saying the guaranteed is the most important part is totally accurate and the driver of the determinants of how much.liability the team has and when they reasonably can get rid of a player without much consequence. The non guaranteed money is much.less important and only matters if a player plays out his full contract and stays productive for the entire contract and doesn't get hurt or injured and miss any time. In that case the lower overall contract could be the better deal. Lots of caveats versus the other deal. 

Plus contracts are heading to more guaranteed money not less. I could see the 70 million dollar contract being a past contract or for a player in lesser demand but not a highly valued sought after player.

Of course there are always exceptions to the rule and little is absolute. But that hardly negates the fact that something that applies 99% of the time should not be determined to be the rule.

[AU-panther]

38 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Your example is too nebulous to evaluate. Could a 5 year 50 million dollar contract with 25 million guaranteed be better than a 5 year 70 million contract with only 20 million guaranteed?  It could be but you are giving out 50% of the contract in guarantees and depending on what the market price is and how old the player is at the time will go a long way to determine the contract worth. Let's say  the 5 year 70 million dollar contract is backloaded with the last year being a salary of 25 million and the other 50 million dollar contract contract is front loaded and the last year salary is only 5 million, then the 5 year 70 million dollar contract would be the better deal until you got to year 5. Most backloaded big cap in the last year contracts are never intended to be earned. 

Saying the guaranteed is the most important part is totally accurate and the driver of the determinants of how much.liability the team has and when they reasonably can get rid of a player without much consequence. The non guaranteed money is much.less important and only matters if a player plays out his full contract and stays productive for the entire contract and doesn't get hurt or injured and miss any time. In that case the lower overall contract could be the better deal. Lots of caveats versus the other deal. 

Plus contracts are heading to more guaranteed money not less. I could see the 70 million dollar contract being a past contract or for a player in lesser demand but not a highly valued sought after player.

Of course there are always exceptions to the rule and little is absolute. But that hardly negates the fact that something that applies 99% of the time should not be determined to be the rule.

At this point we are probably arguing semantics, but in my opinion to say guaranteed money is the most important is a reach.

Look at Cams contract, it is very possible that he plays out the entire contract and consumes the entire amount of cap space the contract originally called for.  If that happens the guaranteed part of the original contract was totally irrelevant in hindsight.  

Did it affect the leverage the team could have had if they chose to release him? Of course. From that perspective it is the most important.

From a practical standpoint was it? No what mattered the most was how much cap he consumed.  

You could have given him a smaller overall deal with more guaranteed money and he would have made less overall.  If the player would have made less and the team would have paid less with in that situation that clear means the overall number was more important.

i totally agree that the guaranteed money is a very important part of the contract but you have to look at the other variables also and those variables play a very huge part in determining what actually happens.

 

 

[panthers55]

16 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

At this point we are probably arguing semantics, but in my opinion to say guaranteed money is the most important is a reach.

Look at Cams contract, it is very possible that he plays out the entire contract and consumes the entire amount of cap space the contract originally called for.  If that happens the guaranteed part of the original contract was totally irrelevant in hindsight.  

Did it affect the leverage the team could have had if they chose to release him? Of course. From that perspective it is the most important.

From a practical standpoint was it? No what mattered the most was how much cap he consumed.  

You could have given him a smaller overall deal with more guaranteed money and he would have made less overall.  If the player would have made less and the team would have paid less with in that situation that clear means the overall number was more important.

i totally agree that the guaranteed money is a very important part of the contract but you have to look at the other variables also and those variables play a very huge part in determining what actually happens.

 

 

Once again you can find examples where the overall contract was paid out and the overall money was more important. But why would a player take less overall money unless the guaranteed money was significantly higher  unless they had doubts about their ability or durability. Or it is their 3rd contract and they have already been paid a boatload and they want to keep playing and is doing a cap friendly deal like a Tom Brady and may retire during that period. 

Of course things are not always black and white but unless you are trying to be a contrarian we both know that agents players and GMs angst about the guaranteed money and how much pays out in the early part of the contract that they are likely to earn. Many times you hear that a 5 year 60 million deal is actually a 3 year 40 million deal because of voidable years or roster/option bonuses which are not guaranteed with more paid out early including all the guaranteed money except for the prorated signing bonus dead cap.

 

[Hoenheim]

We dont HAVE to resign most or all of our guys. Let a few of our guys go = more $ to get other players.