Bosa deal done. Burns, are you next?

[UNCrules2187]

5 minutes ago, Leaky_Faucet said:

The tentative deal is right at 140m over 5 years. GTD money still the issue. 

I'm assuming Panthers are using Chubb, Miller, Crosby guarantees as the baseline and Burns' camp is pointing to Mack, J. Bosa, Watt range. Compromise and do something in the $80m range IMO.

Edited September 7, 2023 by UNCrules2187

[carpanfan96]

6 minutes ago, Leaky_Faucet said:

The tentative deal is right at 140m over 5 years. GTD money still the issue. 

I got 28.1m per so they can say he's the 2nd highest paid edge in the NFL. 

 

What's the hold up on the guaranteed, is his agent trying to get 2nd on both numbers?  

[Bostonheelfish]

Pure speculation but I bet the sticking point is whether the guaranteed money goes over $100 million. That’s the line in the sand of the organization, and the line Burns feels he has earned to cross. panthers are probably at $95 mill guaranteed, and Burns is at $110 or $115 mill. Just far enough a part where one side as to cave and eat it, and that’s the hardest part of the negotiation because if one party offers a little more to try to induce movement on settlement, they look like the desperate one given the season starts this week. There’s little incentive for the organization to strain themselves to meet Burns’ demands when the year is already a maybe good to great year, but since we have a rookie QB it’s a free season. Why pay burns more than his 5th year option for this year. Burns will lose the money from this year by not playing. However Burns could go ahead meet in the middle and get more money playing this year and get some serious gauranteed cash. I think the Panthers have the leverage here, unfortunately.

[WhoKnows]

12 hours ago, tukafan21 said:

In essence, the NFL exists as it does right now because both the league and TV Networks are smart and greedy.  They know how much they can help the other make and know they can do so because the people paying them make so much substantially more themselves.  All because of the number of fans who watch the NFL, but in no way because of how much money those people spend on those products BECAUSE of the NFL or the advertisements during the game.

No chance I am reading that book, but luckily your last paragraph is enough.

So you are saying the NFL exists because they and the networks figured out that selling advertising time was profitable, but advertisers are funding the NFL out of the goodness of their hearts because they make more than NFL owners?

I love the bolded part. The number of NFL fans that watch drives the NFL and networks to make a ton of money but it’s not because of how much money the NFL fans spend on advertisers’ products. That begs the question or WTF would companies advertise if it didn’t get them any return on their investment. You are saying that the stupid companies are just throwing money to advertise but don’t care about whether or not their advertising actually has an ROI. That or you are saying that advertising doesn’t actually work but stupid companies just do it anyway.

A quick search got me this definition, which seems to imply that, gasp, companies advertise in NFL games to get NFL fans to buy their products or services:

Product advertising is the organizational strategy of increasing sales by promoting products to potential customers.

Seems to imply that that companies actually do want to advertise, funding the NFL revenue from the networks, because they expect to increase sales. Amazingly, sales increase because NFL fans buy stuff.

[CRA]

48 minutes ago, Ricky Prickles said:

What would you sign him for realistically if you were GM? I realize he doesnt have to accept but what would you personally offer him if it was your call?

75ish guaranteed.   Puts him at the top of tier 2 and not in tier 1. 

[csx]

1 hour ago, RJK said:

It’s awesome how fitt likes to overpay every jag on the roster then play hardball with the best player 

Huh....the huddle is whining about the fact he will be paid too much

[RJK]

43 minutes ago, csx said:

Huh....the huddle is whining about the fact he will be paid too much

I don’t care what the huddle is whining about. My point is it’s annoying that guys like Ian Thomas and chosen Anderson get contracts they didn’t earn or deserve. now there’s a player that actually helps the team and suddenly fitterer is counting coppers. 

[tukafan21]

1 hour ago, WhoKnows said:

No chance I am reading that book, but luckily your last paragraph is enough.

So you are saying the NFL exists because they and the networks figured out that selling advertising time was profitable, but advertisers are funding the NFL out of the goodness of their hearts because they make more than NFL owners?

I love the bolded part. The number of NFL fans that watch drives the NFL and networks to make a ton of money but it’s not because of how much money the NFL fans spend on advertisers’ products. That begs the question or WTF would companies advertise if it didn’t get them any return on their investment. You are saying that the stupid companies are just throwing money to advertise but don’t care about whether or not their advertising actually has an ROI. That or you are saying that advertising doesn’t actually work but stupid companies just do it anyway.

A quick search got me this definition, which seems to imply that, gasp, companies advertise in NFL games to get NFL fans to buy their products or services:

Product advertising is the organizational strategy of increasing sales by promoting products to potential customers.

Seems to imply that that companies actually do want to advertise, funding the NFL revenue from the networks, because they expect to increase sales. Amazingly, sales increase because NFL fans buy stuff.

You have zero idea what you're talking about, I do this for a living with the brands that advertise on the NFL... hell, early in my career I literally worked on GMC's sponsorship of Monday Night Football.

You don't understand how brand awareness campaigns work, you don't understand how media buying works, and you don't understand just how small of a fraction of a percentage of revenue these brands spend on TV commercials.

You said you didn't read what I posted, but I laid it all out there.  The cost of these tv commercials, while MASSIVE for the NFL's income, is the equivalent to you spending the pennies you find in your couch cushions.  You're too hung up on thinking it costs these brands so much money to run these commercials, but it doesn't work that way, go read that post, I explained it all with actual real life revenue and advertising numbers from Ford.

I also fully explained how they do care about ROI and they study it (I actually agreed with you on that in my post).  They know they need to get their commercials in front of X number of eyeballs, Y number of times, so they pay what it takes to get Z number of commercials run.  With how small a fraction of their revenue is spent on commercial time, the cost of it doesn't matter to them, it's about hitting those numbers and they pay what it takes to get that done.

Again, go read the post you refused to read, it clearly explains how it all works, but if you don't want to believe someone who literally works in this field and for this brand, that's your choice.  

Edited September 7, 2023 by tukafan21

[tukafan21]

2 hours ago, Stuart Smith said:

Interesting that baseball and the Yankees were brought up. The Yankees consistently outspend the small market teams (as do the Mets) who cannot afford the payroll and go over the cap. Yet, it has been a while since either won a World Series. This is not the same as football, there are some differences I know. However, there are some things to think about. The ability of the front office to recognize and retain key players while managing payroll is equally important in any sport. This is for all intent and purposes Fitterer’s team. How this team performs this year is a reflection of his (Fitterer’s)  ability. It will be interesting to watch. 

Yea, like you said, there is just zero comparison to the Yankees (or any MLB team).

They can spend whatever they want, however little or small, completely their choice and is generally based on how much money the team makes.

The NFL pays each team $300 million a year from the TV rights, they then set the salary cap based on those payments, and then implement a minimum spend as well.  

This whole thing with that guy started by him saying because fans pay for merchandise and products from advertisers, it's like we're paying the player's salaries so we have a right to complain how it's spent.  But he just can't seem to grasp how even though the NFL gets a stupid amount of money for these TV rights, the commercial cost to the individual brands isn't even a blip on the radar for them with how much revenue they bring in each year.

[NorthTryon]

On 9/6/2023 at 4:46 PM, NAS said:

Some people are dumb.   Burns is not expecting Bosa money but he is expecting something close to $30MM and he does deserve it.  He's also only 25 so you're paying him for what he's about to do, not just what he's done.  

And on top of his potential, he is a locker room and coaches' dream. He is a quiet lead by example guy who works and goes home. Have people forgotten how volatile Hardy was and the black eye of several of our wilder players over the years? 

[panthers55]

6 hours ago, AU-panther said:

But there is a limit and you are making it sound like their isn’t.

It’s true that often times teams can restructure a few players and fit people in but the cap is unlimited.  Here again why does a team like KC let Hill go or why does any team let a star player.  Why hasn’t an owner like Jerry Jones just paid to have an all pro at every position? 
The cap is real, those that say otherwise just don’t understand it. 
Speaking  of restructuring we actually had a year during DH gentleman’s tenure where pretty much every player with a significant salary had been restructured.  Basically every credit card was maxed. 

Not saying there isn't a limit just saying that the cap isn't the big issue you and others make it out to be. Again we all agree there is a salary cap, you don't need to say it over and over when everyone agrees there is a number that goes up most every year. The myth is that is can't be easily manipulated to the point that it doesn't stop you from getting the players you want or kills your roster if you pay someone a premium like Burns which is what the whole conversation is about. Or that you can't spend more cash in a year than the cap allows  So once again there is a cap but it is is not the impediment you and others suggest.  And given it can be manipulated so easily, it really isn't a problem for creative cap managers

I would hardly use Gettleman as an example of what to do. He was largely a disaster with his fruit basket turnover every year.

[SmittysLawnGuy]

11 hours ago, d-dave said:

I disagree.  I do not pay any Carolina Panthers salary?  That's Tepper's money.  We buy Panthers gear, go to games, concerts, watch TV, etc - and it still get's funneled to Dave Tepper.  Since he bought the team, his wealth has increased by $4 BILLION.  

The salary cap isn't a fantasy draft.  It's not our money, the cap is an easily manipulated myth.  Look at the Saints, the poster child for cap manipulation.  "Oh no, they have all this dead cap money!" But they still are able to keep players, over pay them, and add more.  

If YOU or I were he GM/Owner who wrote checks, then I'd be much more concerned with the money issue.  I'm not.  I'm just a fan.  It's up to the team to make the best decisions.  They made this one when they didn't trade Burns to the Rams - we all knew he was going to get paid.  Now that Bosa's deal is done, the market has been set, and it's time to sign Burns to his MEGA deal.

No offense but to say the cap is a myth is lunacy, ask the Rams. Don't get me wrong, I'd take that Super Bowl as well but now they are reaping what they sowed. 

[panthers55]

11 minutes ago, SmittysLawnGuy said:

No offense but to say the cap is a myth is lunacy, ask the Rams. Don't get me wrong, I'd take that Super Bowl as well but now they are reaping what they sowed. 

Again the myth is that the cap really limits you when it is actually judging talent poorly and guaranteeing too much money so you end up with a ton of dead cap money dumping or trading players, injuries or guys that retire prematurely.  Why do some teams stay in cap hell while others dont??

[AU-panther]

2 hours ago, panthers55 said:

Not saying there isn't a limit just saying that the cap isn't the big issue you and others make it out to be. Again we all agree there is a salary cap, you don't need to say it over and over when everyone agrees there is a number that goes up most every year. The myth is that is can't be easily manipulated to the point that it doesn't stop you from getting the players you want or kills your roster if you pay someone a premium like Burns which is what the whole conversation is about. Or that you can't spend more cash in a year than the cap allows  So once again there is a cap but it is is not the impediment you and others suggest.  And given it can be manipulated so easily, it really isn't a problem for creative cap managers

I would hardly use Gettleman as an example of what to do. He was largely a disaster with his fruit basket turnover every year.

But it does stop teams from getting who they want.  Hence the the reason all rosters are primarily made up of cheap guys.  
Will the  prevent us from signing Burns if we want? No, but it will prevent us from signing a lot of players to contracts like that.

here again, it’s not as prohibitive as some make it out to be but to make statements that it doesn’t matter as all is just wrong.