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

[AU-panther]

32 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

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.

 

My example with Cam actually said higher guarantees with less overall would have probably worked out better for us from a cap space perspective.  Not sure why you are using an example of a player taking less overall money and less overall guaranteed.

Quick question, Which is the better contract for a player or team?

5yr/$100m with $30m guaranteed 

5yr/$125m with $25m guaranteed

[panthers55]

3 hours ago, AU-panther said:

My example with Cam actually said higher guarantees with less overall would have probably worked out better for us from a cap space perspective.  Not sure why you are using an example of a player taking less overall money and less overall guaranteed.

Quick question, Which is the better contract for a player or team?

5yr/$100m with $30m guaranteed 

5yr/$125m with $25m guaranteed

Again quarterbacks are less likely to get cut and the number 1 pick in the draft even less likely. So again Cam is the exception to the rule. Why use him as your example when he doesn't represent the majority of contracts in the league or what usually happens.

And again just putting in numbers give no context as to which is the better deal which you don't know until after the fact. Generally the one with less guaranteed money is usually always the best for the team.But again there are always exceptions to the rule. Unless the exceptions outnumber the rule, it still applies.

[AU-panther]

1 minute ago, panthers55 said:

Again quarterbacks are less likely to get cut and the number 1 pick in the draft even less likely. So again Cam is the exception to the rule. Why use him as your example when he doesn't represent the majority of contracts in the league or what usually happens.

And again just putting in numbers give no context as to which is the better deal which you don't know until after the fact. Generally the one with less guaranteed money is usually always the best for the team.But again there are always exceptions to the rule. Unless the exceptions outnumber the rule, it still applies.

So basically we agree that guaranteed money is an important factor in a contract but not necessarily always the most important.  If it was the most important the above question would have an obvious answer which it does not.  The majority of a time does not equal an absolute. Contracts with less overall money are better for teams also, still doesn't make it an absolute. 

At the end of the day we basically agree on the same thing its just how some people choose to phrase it.  To say that guaranteed money is the most important aspect of a contract sounds like an absolute.  Not everyone has the knowledge of contract structure as you do so if they take that type of statement literally they could form the wrong opinion of something.  They would pick the second contract in my above question every time if they were team, when in reality that contract could cost them more.

[ickmule]

Once you start to accept this team will always be average the better you will cope with how we do things. Love JR, but until we have different ownership nothing will change. Win one year and lose the next or so.  Same $hit since 1995. 

[LinvilleGorge]

On 2/23/2017 at 6:34 AM, pantherclaw said:

The same core players that took them 15-1, and to the superbowl. 

 

We were very fortunate to get to the Super Bowl with Remmers starting at OT and I don't think we had a single CB from that season on the roster last year... and it showed. So, we can't exactly say we had the same core players.

We're now a full season removed from 15-1 and a Super Bowl appearance. That's irrelevant now. You are what your record says you are. We're a 6-10 team sitting on a top 10 draft pick. It's time to stop living in the past. That's a big part of why this franchise has never enjoyed back to back winning seasons. We get a taste of success and get cocky and act like we've got it all figured out and then proceed to fall flat on our faces.

[TheSpecialJuan]

[E CaT PanTHer 2]

can you imagine if we trade for joe staley, sign ricky wagner, and draft fournette.

make it happen DG!  

[pantherclaw]

14 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

We were very fortunate to get to the Super Bowl with Remmers starting at OT and I don't think we had a single CB from that season on the roster last year... and it showed. So, we can't exactly say we had the same core players.

We're now a full season removed from 15-1 and a Super Bowl appearance. That's irrelevant now. You are what your record says you are. We're a 6-10 team sitting on a top 10 draft pick. It's time to stop living in the past. That's a big part of why this franchise has never enjoyed back to back winning seasons. We get a taste of success and get cocky and act like we've got it all figured out and then proceed to fall flat on our faces.

15-1 isn't fortunate. Great way to downplay that season.

[LinvilleGorge]

30 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

15-1 isn't fortunate. Great way to downplay that season.

My point was less to do downplaying that season and far more to quit hanging our hat on something that's in the past. 

Just because a guy filled a certain role on a successful team doesn't necessarily mean that guy is a great option moving forward.

Sorry, snowflake

[pantherclaw]

2 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

My point was less to do downplaying that season and far more to quit hanging our hat on something that's in the past. 

Just because a guy filled a certain role on a successful team doesn't necessarily mean that guy is a great option moving forward.

Sorry, snowflake

Name calling is always cute, and it drives your point home. 

No one is hanging a hat on it.  I'm just pointing out that the same players you say are worthless, were part of a very successful team, no matter how hard you try to hang your hat on last season alone. 

It's quite obvious evaluations have been made, and changes are happening... but don't let that stop you from spewing immature statements.

[LinvilleGorge]

26 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

Name calling is always cute, and it drives your point home. 

No one is hanging a hat on it.  I'm just pointing out that the same players you say are worthless, were part of a very successful team, no matter how hard you try to hang your hat on last season alone. 

It's quite obvious evaluations have been made, and changes are happening... but don't let that stop you from spewing immature statements.

Worthless? No. I'd love to have Remmers as a versatile backup, but he's not a starting OT and him starting at OT when we went 15-1 and made a SB run doesn't prove that. Every team has weaknesses and he was one of our key weaknesses that season... and last season for that matter.

Your post once again exhibits why I called you a snowflake. I'm sorry that you have an inability to articulate an intelligent thought and can only attempt to attack another's position while adding nothing to a conversation. Snark isn't carrying you very far here.

 

[AU-panther]

49 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Worthless? No. I'd love to have Remmers as a versatile backup, but he's not a starting OT and him starting at OT when we went 15-1 and made a SB run doesn't prove that. Every team has weaknesses and he was one of our key weaknesses that season... and last season for that matter.

Your post once again exhibits why I called you a snowflake. I'm sorry that you have an inability to articulate an intelligent thought and can only attempt to attack another's position while adding nothing to a conversation. Snark isn't carrying you very far here.

 

What people fail to realize is that being good and above average are two different things.

While Remmers might not fit some people's definition of good the fact is he could have been considered an above average RT in 2015.  Under that definition an upgrade might not be as easy as some people think, because that means there are at least 16 other teams in worse shape.

[LinvilleGorge]

16 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

What people fail to realize is that being good and above average are two different things.

While Remmers might not fit some people's definition of good the fact is he could have been considered an above average RT in 2015.  Under that definition an upgrade might not be as easy as some people think, because that means there are at least 16 other teams in worse shape.

I would disagree with anyone who classified Remmers as an above average RT. He's serviceable against the right match ups, but whenever he faces off against anyone with speed, he's a huge liability. I can't classify anyone with such a glaring weakness as above average, especially when he's not particularly great at anything. IMO, his best asset is his versatility and that's best utilized in a backup role. I'd love to keep him as a versatile backup.

[pantherclaw]

I didn't name remmers. You did. Whether you agree with DG about him or not, is a moot point. 

I also love that your second paragraph describes your posts, perfectly!