REPORT: Panthers and Brian Burns not at all close to extension

[jfra78]

11 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

This is a completely irrelevant post to the discussion at hand though.

The question is whether Fitt put himself in a terrible place from a negotiation stand point or not, and there is literally no way of framing where things stand right now without that answer being a resounding yes.

Sure, maybe it works out, but he's the one who put himself behind the 8 ball on this particular negotiation.

How? By not trading him?  If Burns was waiting for Bosas deal then how could Fitterer have done any different when wanting to keep Burns

[CRA]

4 minutes ago, Gerry Green said:

 

I get what guaranteed money does. I'm just saying that we have no clue what Burns is asking. So there is no reason for all the vitriol being thrown at Brian this week. It's premature, and uncalled for. 

Very little thrown at Burns.  Outside of just acknowledging he isn’t a Bosa/Mack level edge player and is more a pure pass rusher…..and people choosing to claim that is dissing Burns. 

almost all the talk is on Fitt and the Panther front office in reality for handling everything so poorly and having us here 

[Mr. Scot]

 

[CRA]

2 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

How? By not trading him?  If Burns was waiting for Bosas deal then how could Fitterer have done any different when wanting to keep Burns

You talk to Burns before you turn that trade down….and if the Bosa deal was something he and his team were going to wait on you trade him.  Because he ain’t Bosa.
 

[CRA]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

 

It sounds like Burns doing everything you would want him to do and could ask of him.   
 

I still don’t think he plays unless ink is on paper.  But he doesn’t seem like the to abandon his leadership role just because business is business 

[tukafan21]

22 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

Guaranteed money is always the hang up in these contracts because it's the only number that really matters. 

He could sign a $750m 5 year contract with 0 guaranteed, shred his knee game 1 and get cut the next day with zero penalties. If he's got 100m guaranteed, he gets 100m no matter what. That's why that's always the sticking point. 

Again, no it's not, it's why I'm thinking at this point we just need to go out and use Tepper's very deep pockets to steal one of the better cap managers in the league, say from the Saints or Eagles.

Like I posted a little earlier, guaranteed money matters, but the "realistic guaranteed" money is what matters more, and that comes down to how the contract is structured.

Teams can structure these contracts with the guaranteed money, but in a way that there is no way for the team to get out of it before other portions of the contract become guaranteed.

For example....

Say a team signs someone to a 4 year, $100 million dollar contract with only $40 million guaranteed paid upon signing.....

It can be structured to where year 1 and 2 have the player's salary being the vet minimum while year 3 is a salary of say $40 million and then $20 million in year 4.  

The player can't be cut after year 1 as they'd then have paid the player the $40 million guaranteed money while then taking on a $30 million dead cap hit.  No team is cutting an elite player after 1 bad season when they'd then have to carry a $30+ million cap hit while doing so.

They then also worked the contract so that Year 3 with the big salary is guaranteed if the player is on the roster Day 1 of the league year following the first year of the contract.  At that time they then are able to re-structure the contract to convert that $40 million salary to a roster bonus.  If the player is performing as expected, it can be done in an extension that really pushes that cap down the road, if not, it can be done with voidable years to still push it down the road without actually extending the player.

In that example, they only got $40 million guaranteed, but in reality, it was actually an $80 million guarantee with how it was structured because everyone knew there was no way they'd be cut after one season and thus trigger the extra $40 in guaranteed money.

Edited September 9, 2023 by tukafan21

[jfra78]

1 minute ago, CRA said:

You talk to Burns before you turn that trade down….and if the Bosa deal was something he and his team were going to wait on you trade him.  Because he ain’t Bosa.
 

Ridiculous to just throw away home grown talent like that, its obvious that the team wants Burns here and they will pay him appropriately.  Whether you think he is worth it or not doesn't mean anything

[SmokinwithWilly]

6 minutes ago, Gerry Green said:

 

I get what guaranteed money does. I'm just saying that we have no clue what Burns is asking. So there is no reason for all the vitriol being thrown at Brian this week. It's premature, and uncalled for. 

We're not upset at Burns. This is about contracts and value as a commodity, and like it or not, that's what he is. He wants to get his and that's fine. 

The thing most people are pissed about is how this was handled by the front office. By rejecting the trade, we said we valued him at higher than 2 1sts and a 2nd, then tried to pay him like a player we valued less than that. 

All of this was discussed at the time of the offer. And if we as fans know it, you know they did too. 

[Jmac]

So if Burns doesn't play.....how do they shuffle the D to compensate?

[tukafan21]

14 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

How? By not trading him?  If Burns was waiting for Bosas deal then how could Fitterer have done any different when wanting to keep Burns

You tell him, "we love you, we think you're going to be one of the best pass rushers in this league for a while.  But we're not waiting for you to use the reigning defensive player of the year's contract to use as leverage over us, as you're not there as a player yet.  This is what we're willing to offer you, if you think you're worth more because you think someone significantly more accomplished than you will get much more, then we have to trade you"

The agents and the players understand the business, he's not going to get upset at them telling him that because there isn't anyone in the world who knows the slightest bit about football who could look at what they've accomplished in their careers so far and deny those facts.

If he wants to turn down TJ Watt money while trying to get closer to Bosa money, then he's out of his mind and at that point we should be trading him.

$28-30 million a year should be more than enough to get it done for Burns and should be low enough to make us okay with it.  Guarantees can be figured out with smart contract structure, that we haven't been able to get that done yet is a reflection on the front office in my opinion, not Burns.

Edited September 9, 2023 by tukafan21

[SmokinwithWilly]

11 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Again, no it's not, it's why I'm thinking at this point we just need to go out and use Tepper's very deep pockets to steal one of the better cap managers in the league, say from the Saints or Eagles.

Like I posted a little earlier, guaranteed money matters, but the "realistic guaranteed" money is what matters more, and that comes down to how the contract is structured.

Teams can structure these contracts with the guaranteed money, but in a way that there is no way for the team to get out of it before other portions of the contract become guaranteed.

For example....

Say a team signs someone to a 4 year, $100 million dollar contract with only $40 million guaranteed paid upon signing.....

It can be structured to where year 1 and 2 have the player's salary being the vet minimum while year 3 is a salary of say $40 million and then $20 million in year 4.  

The player can't be cut after year 1 as they'd then have paid the player the $40 million guaranteed money while then taking on a $30 million dead cap hit.  No team is cutting an elite player after 1 bad season when they'd then have to carry a $30+ million cap hit while doing so.

They then also worked the contract so that Year 3 with the big salary is guaranteed if the player is on the roster Day 1 of the league year following the first year of the contract.  At that time they then are able to re-structure the contract to convert that $40 million salary to a roster bonus.  If the player is performing as expected, it can be done in an extension that really pushes that cap down the road, if not, it can be done with voidable years to still push it down the road without actually extending the player.

In that example, they only got $40 million guaranteed, but in reality, it was actually an $80 million guarantee with how it was structured because everyone knew there was no way they'd be cut after one season and thus trigger the extra $40 in guaranteed money.

I get what you're saying but I was trying to simplify it because NFL contracts are such a complex thing. Guarantees are what matters however they're structured. 

[therealmjl]

 

[Sean Payton's Vicodin]

Hold off trading 2 firsts for this guy and then can't extend him. And Panther fans kiss this guys ass because their standards are in the dirt. Just lmao

Marty Hurney >>>> Fitt 

[CRA]

28 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

Ridiculous to just throw away home grown talent like that, it’s obvious that the team wants Burns here and they will pay him appropriately.  Whether you think he is worth it or not doesn't mean anything

He isn’t home grown talent.  It’s the NFL.

You don’t just pay guys whatever they demand because you drafted them.  What you pay matters in a cap driven league.  It’s dictates how much talent you end up being able to put on the field.