Bosa deal done. Burns, are you next?

[panthers55]

50 minutes ago, CRA said:

It’s our team.  And how they manage the cap and contracts impacts the quality of the team we root for.  

and this board has spent decades complaining about the bad contracts and management…. and how that impacts our ability to build quality rosters to compete.

 

But that is the big myth. The cap can be manipulated a dozen ways and teams like New Orleans have consistently got who they wanted and paid whatever. They paid a ton for Carr when they were over the cap and are favorites to win the division.  So no you and others here are wrong in your thinking that the cap will hurt our roster building and Burn's money will hurt us moving forward.

[Toomers]

Just now, carpanfan96 said:

Highsmith cheated himself out of millions and we've had this discussion already. Completely different situations.  Yeesh

Steelers were smart enough to sign him before all of this. And you said you would get back with sources for your “numbers” after you took a nap a felt better. No one, including you, has shown why Burns should get 10-13M/yr more than Highsmith. Or any more for that matter. Why is it a different situation now?

[panthers55]

24 minutes ago, CRA said:

Bad contracts/deals are bad no matter the position.  And they add up. 

no one is saying don’t pay Burns.   But Bosa money would be dumb.  120+ guaranteed? Comparable players are at half that in that last year. 

And our dumb management of things has never been limited to just RBs and LBs.  

The issue is the guaranteed money. The 122 guaranteed is a much bigger issue than the 170 overall. How many players actually get all that money? Much less than you think.

[jayboogieman]

1 hour ago, Basbear said:

[Tbe]

1 minute ago, panthers55 said:

But that is the big myth. The cap can be manipulated a dozen ways and teams like New Orleans have consistently got who they wanted and paid whatever. They paid a ton for Carr when they were over the cap and are favorites to win the division.  So no you and others here are wrong in your thinking that the cap will hurt our roster building and Burn's money will hurt us moving forward.

Sort of. There are limits to how much the cap can be manipulated.

It’s a mistake to say it doesn’t matter.

[panthers55]

20 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

oh poo, sick burn

Just the truth.

[carpanfan96]

Just now, Toomers said:

Steelers were smart enough to sign him before all of this. And you said you would get back with sources for your “numbers” after you took a nap a felt better. No one, including you, has shown why Burns should get 10-13M/yr more than Highsmith. Or any more for that matter. Why is it a different situation now?

I said when we talked the other day that.  it's because of the one year or two years depending on how you judge high level pass rushing. He also has a different job, he plays strong side and is depended on to normally set and hold the edge more than rushing.  He got higher stats last year because of Watt missing time and moving over. 

 

Burns has 4 years of production and 3 years of high level pass rushing. 

[mrcompletely11]

3 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Just the truth.

You spitting fire now

[tukafan21]

45 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

Do you not understand business? It is 100% true that the tube of Crest we buy is paying money to the NFL team because Crest advertises during a game. That’s literally how a capitalistic market works. WTF would P&G advertise on an NFL game if they weren’t getting a sales impact due to that advertising? WTF would CBS pay billions to show NFL games if they weren’t making a profit due to advertising dollars.

Also, at you saying that it wouldn’t matter to owners of fans spent a million dollars or no dollars. If every NFL fan switched to be a soccer fan, the NFL would fold and there would be no revenue sharing because no one would pay for the game rights since no one would buy advertising time.

I’m sorry but I can’t believe people don’t get that NFL fans contribute to revenue sharing by watching NFL games and buying things from companies who advertise. P&G wouldn’t exist if no one bought Tide or Crest or Cascade and people do because of advertising which directly pays the networks who pay the NFL.

You're conflating how business works and operates with "the fans pay the player's salaries so they have a right to complain how it's spent" and they couldn't be further from the truth.  Yes, the salary cap is set based on league revenue, which is based off TV contracts, which yes, are then also based off what the networks will be able to get from advertising money.

But to say "we pay their salaries" when you buy a tube of toothpaste is a significant and rather farcical leap of correlation between the two.

That same Crest commercial is also going to run on Real Housewifes of Atlanta.

Are you saying when you buy that $5 tube of toothpaste, that you're partially paying for Brian Burns' contract as well as paying Betty Joe Sue's contract to be on that show?

Of course not

Brand's budgets for advertising on NFL games is solely set by the number of eyeballs that watch the games, not based on how many tubes of toothpaste the ads sell, because there is no way to ever correlate sales to any TV commercial.  The brands who advertise during NFL aren't mom and pop places, they're global fortune 500 type of companies, the ones who are going to have massive sales regardless of how many football fans buy their products.

You buy a tube of toothpaste from Target, Target bought that toothpaste from a distributor, the distributor bought it from Crest, Crest paid CBS and Fox for commercial time, CBS and FOX paid the NFL for the games, the NFL pays teams the TV revenue, the teams pay players.

If you're seriously trying to say that you buying that tube of toothpaste gives you the right as a fan to complain about how YOUR money is being spent on players, then I think you're the one who doesn't understand how business works.

I'm guessing if P&G spent $0 on NFL advertising, while maybe their sales take a small hit, they'd still be one of the biggest companies in the world.  But they spend it there because they know it has a ton of eyeballs so it's a smart use of their advertising money that they'd be spending to place ads somewhere else instead if not on the NFL.

Your argument about if nobody bought P&G products or if all NFL fans started to only watch soccer aren't real life scenarios.  You were saying that in response to if fans spent $0 or $1 million that it wouldn't change how they spend, but I clearly wasn't saying ALL fans, it was individually.  Your scenario would literally take almost every fan of the sport to just stop watching it, which is just nonsense.

If I go out and buy $10 million of Panthers gear today, or even $100 million, it's affect on what we'll pay our players is literally the exact same thing as me spending absolutely nothing.  Because teams want to be competitive, so they spend based on what the cap is, not how much merchandise sales they have.  This isn't European Soccer to where those merchandise sales are what allow you to purchase players from other teams, where they don't have salary caps but caps on what you can spend based on what you bring in.

And all that is set at multitudes of levels away from NFL fan's individual spending on products advertised during games.

Edited September 6, 2023 by tukafan21

[panthers55]

Just now, Tbe said:

Sort of. There are limits to how much the cap can be manipulated.

It’s a mistake to say it doesn’t matter.

No it doesnt matter what the overall numbers are. The only money that matters is guaranteed money. Were voidable years a thing 15 years ago? GMs find additional ways to manipulate the cap and will continue to find new ways to do it.  All of this angst is just overblown like usual.  Did CMC's contract keep us from signing other folks? The only time teams talk about the cap is when they want to us it to keep from paying someone or justify cutting someone.  Teams like Tampa are in cap he'll but it was by their own choosing  

[mrcompletely11]

1 minute ago, panthers55 said:

No it doesnt matter what the overall numbers are. The only money that matters is guaranteed money. Were voidable years a thing 15 years ago? GMs find additional ways to manipulate the cap and will continue to find new ways to do it.  All of this angst is just overblown like usual.  Did CMC's contract keep us from signing other folks? The only time teams talk about the cap is when they want to us it to keep from paying someone or justify cutting someone.  Teams like Tampa are in cap he'll but it was by their own choosing  

So why did we trade cmc then?

[CamWhoaaCam]

Burns is loving this!

 

Im predicting he will get 28-30mil per year.

 

Get it done Tepper!

[panthers55]

55 minutes ago, beo said:

What will cripple the team is our terrible cap management otherwise. One of the perks that comes with running a football team correctly is the ability to absorb contracts like this where you're backed into a corner and probably staring down the barrel of an overpay shotgun due to circumstance and the news of the Rams trade getting out. But no, we have to waste money on prove it deals that could've instead been carried over, pay Chosen Robbie a ridiculous amount of money, have obscene amounts of dead cap basically every season because of all the horrible contracts we sign and then move on from (3 of our 6 highest paid players arent even on the damn team) and in general fuging ruin our cap so that when valuable core pieces like Burns' deal come up we're backed up against the wall and stuck having to try and nickel and dime every last dollar. The situation from a roster standpoint is strikingly similar to Moton's a few years ago IMO. We can't just trade or release the only good player on the unit; if Burns isn't on the field our DL gets much worse and it showed during pre-season. 

Wholeheartedly agree that it's silly that people are clutching pearls over a few mil per year annually that won't even be noticeable in a few seasons with Burns but take no issue with all the other money we've burned in a bonfire but I just don't know how we're going to be able to afford Chinn and Brown and all of our other core pieces as well after this.

Ancient history. The contracts we have given out lately appear much better but you can always find a few bad ones

 

[panthers55]

3 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

So why did we trade cmc then?

Damn good question. Looking at how we could have been offensively with him here, I think it was a mistake. But I know they were thinking to get as many picks as they could while he was healthy given his injury concerns. It wasn't all about the money.