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!

     

Per Jonathan Alexander, Browns were willing to eat 50% of Bakers salary($9m) and Panthers said no. Apparently, the max we want to take is $5m, playing hardball with them.

Julio

By Julio,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

SizzleBuzz Grand Master

SizzleBuzz

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 6/4/2022 at 6:38 PM, Julio said:

Said it on his interview in Julian Council’s Locked On podcast. Joe Person previously reported that the Browns were only willing to take on 2-3m, so quite a difference.

None of the local "reporters" have any legit/real sources...

...they're just winging it 🤦‍♂️.

Edited by SizzleBuzz
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, rayzor said:

 

For all the talk of "legit" sources, I don't think he has proposed any sources we should be listening to. 

Considering how often we hear Panthers internal moves or prospective moves blasted in the media, doesn't seem like sources are much of a problem in that organization. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Has it been explained yet why there wasnt a straight Baker for Darnold trade?

Not sure it really needs too much explaining. They are ultimately trying to accomplish two things:

1. Jettison a toxic player.

2. Clear salary cap space.

Trading for Darnold straight up immediately torpedoes the second goal. 

They have backup QB's that are far better than Darnold so there is also the element of Darnold literally not being useful at all. It's very likely even if they did agree to the deal they would just cut him anyway.

The only way Carolina is going to be able to get rid of Sam is to pay most of his salary or give up a pick. He is a terrible player on an even worse contract(even at just 1 year).

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrcompletely11 Grand Master

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Not sure it really needs too much explaining. They are ultimately trying to accomplish two things:

1. Jettison a toxic player.

2. Clear salary cap space.

Trading for Darnold straight up immediately torpedoes the second goal. 

They have backup QB's that are far better than Darnold so there is also the element of Darnold literally not being useful at all. It's very likely even if they did agree to the deal they would just cut him anyway.

The only way Carolina is going to be able to get rid of Sam is to pay most of his salary or give up a pick. He is a terrible player on an even worse contract(even at just 1 year).

I see the cap space angle but at some point they have to realize he is going to cost money one way or the other

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrcompletely11 Grand Master

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, rebelrouser said:

You bring in Baker when you have a complete team except for qb and his good not great ability can get you in the playoffs. We aren't that. What would Baker realistically do for us? Two more wins and a worse draft pick and Corral less developed? Why?

I agree.  I would just start corral from day one and see what’s there.   Adding baker doesn’t do squat but for some reason this trade speculation will not stop

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, rebelrouser said:

You bring in Baker when you have a complete team except for qb and his good not great ability can get you in the playoffs. We aren't that. What would Baker realistically do for us? Two more wins and a worse draft pick and Corral less developed? Why?

Keep in mind that we are coming off two straight 5 win seasons so literally any improvement might buy a coach on the hot seat more time.

For the franchise and our future, it probably doesn't move the needle much unless Baker has some sort of unexpected renaissance here. 

This move is more about trying to not get fired, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • LinvilleGorge
      2024 College Football Thread

      By LinvilleGorge · Posted

      Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...