Burns doesn’t think he teams top priority. Also thinks he should be paid among top edge rushers

[tukafan21]

We have no HC or GM

No poo you’re not their top priority right now

This is my final straw, I don’t want him back, must tag and trade for anything anyone will give us at this point.

[BY9Franchise]

18 hours ago, Jon Snow said:

He was a late 1st round pick so recouping that would be nice.  At this point I would settle for just not paying him that huge contract and let him test FA. Honestly I would let him walk with a thank you and good luck. The compensation ship has already sailed.

He was a mid first rounder since when is 16 late?

[Gapanthersfan]

Burns is the anti Thomas Davis. He is the anti keep pounding. Keep pounding means at its core, never quit  

Quitter. Worse off, he quit his teammates over $$.

Once a quitter, always a quitter. It’s a cancer to be around. 

Bye. 

[Jon Snow]

3 hours ago, BY9Franchise said:

He was a mid first rounder since when is 16 late?

My mistake, I thought he was draftrd in the 20's. Either way getting anything is better than nothing. 

[KatsAzz]

On 1/8/2024 at 1:06 PM, Burnout189 said:

They deserve top 10 pay way before Burns.

My exact thoughts.

[Loyalty4Life]

This has probably been said but I would hit him with the Non-exclusive Tags.  Allows a player to negotiate with other teams.  We have the right to match or refuse and get 2 first round picks.

From what I've remember the Panthers offered him Maxx Crosby type numbers which I totally agree with.  (23 per year).  He said no. 

Franchise tag is right around that so I have no problem tagging him.  If we tag him again the year after that it's 120% of his last years salary which in this case would then be almost 28 million.  Year 3 of the tag is 144% which could be around 40 million.

So in essence with the tag we can do the following which gives the Panthers a ton of control.

1 year - 23 million

2 years - 51 million (avg of 25 million per year)

3 years - 91 million (avg of 30 million per year)

So, even if we tag him 3 years in a row it's less than what he is currently asking.  Plus, the salary is only guaranteed for each year we apply the tag.

Between the numbers we want to pay and what he is asking we've already won.  The biggest downside is his attitude if we did this and that we couldn't use the tag on another player since you can only use it once per year.  (How much he cost will probably go up some as the average of the top 5 salaries at that position plays a part in the base but we're still in the ball park)

Fitterer did this one exactly right to get the team either a fair deal or compensation. 

If he plays on the FA tag, we win.  If we do a sign and trade we win.  We are either getting at least 2 first round picks if we sign and trade or put the Non-exclusive tag on him and another team takes him.

Yes, we could have entered up the the two 1st round picks if we'd had traded the Rams but at the time and now, we'd rather have him play for us.  It just has to be at the right price.

 

[outlaw4]

Anyone remember anything Burns did this year that leaps out in terms of difference maker? Back in the day, Peppers got blasted for not showing up all the time but everyone knew when he was on. Not saying Burns didn't have impact plays but big money requires big plays. Just saying.

[jamos14]

8 minutes ago, outlaw4 said:

Anyone remember anything Burns did this year that leaps out in terms of difference maker? Back in the day, Peppers got blasted for not showing up all the time but everyone knew when he was on. Not saying Burns didn't have impact plays but big money requires big plays. Just saying.

1.5 sacks in the first half of game 1.

That's literally the only BIG moment he had all season.  He disappeared the rest of the season.  And still thinks he should get top tier money.  As another poster said, not paying Burns was a great decision by Fitterer.   Not trading him was a fireable offense.

[outlaw4]

3 minutes ago, jamos14 said:

1.5 sacks in the first half of game 1.

That's literally the only BIG moment he had all season.  He disappeared the rest of the season.  And still thinks he should get top tier money.  As another poster said, not paying Burns was a great decision by Fitterer.   Not trading him was a fireable offense.

There's still the part of me that wonders whether Fitterer actually had the option to make that trade with the Rams or if Tepper was never going to let it happen.

If we tag and trade him, wouldn't shock me if he explodes elsewhere. We seem to make every player look worse than they really are.

[Chad_Cota]

2 1st, 2nd, and late round pick missed by Mr. Analytics (Scott F). Will be one of the biggest what-ifs in franchise history. 

[Tr3ach]

1 hour ago, Loyalty4Life said:

This has probably been said but I would hit him with the Non-exclusive Tags.  Allows a player to negotiate with other teams.  We have the right to match or refuse and get 2 first round picks.

From what I've remember the Panthers offered him Maxx Crosby type numbers which I totally agree with.  (23 per year).  He said no. 

Franchise tag is right around that so I have no problem tagging him.  If we tag him again the year after that it's 120% of his last years salary which in this case would then be almost 28 million.  Year 3 of the tag is 144% which could be around 40 million.

So in essence with the tag we can do the following which gives the Panthers a ton of control.

1 year - 23 million

2 years - 51 million (avg of 25 million per year)

3 years - 91 million (avg of 30 million per year)

So, even if we tag him 3 years in a row it's less than what he is currently asking.  Plus, the salary is only guaranteed for each year we apply the tag.

Between the numbers we want to pay and what he is asking we've already won.  The biggest downside is his attitude if we did this and that we couldn't use the tag on another player since you can only use it once per year.  (How much he cost will probably go up some as the average of the top 5 salaries at that position plays a part in the base but we're still in the ball park)

Fitterer did this one exactly right to get the team either a fair deal or compensation. 

If he plays on the FA tag, we win.  If we do a sign and trade we win.  We are either getting at least 2 first round picks if we sign and trade or put the Non-exclusive tag on him and another team takes him.

Yes, we could have entered up the the two 1st round picks if we'd had traded the Rams but at the time and now, we'd rather have him play for us.  It just has to be at the right price.

 

No one is going to give us anywhere near that for him anymore.  It was 100% a misplay.   If we franchise him and cant get a trade for him then its going to get ugly fast.  He will 100% cause drama next year if he gets franchised and not traded. 

[KSpan]

54 minutes ago, outlaw4 said:

Anyone remember anything Burns did this year that leaps out in terms of difference maker? Back in the day, Peppers got blasted for not showing up all the time but everyone knew when he was on. Not saying Burns didn't have impact plays but big money requires big plays. Just saying.

That's always been part of my argument against backing the truck up for Burns - he gets some stats but just doesn't impact the game. Not only do I not remember a single play this year, I can't recall a single memorable play from his entire career thus far even though I've watched majority of the games. It's an unscientific metric, but I feel like someone getting paid in elite money should have at least a handful of memorable plays... hell, even Jeremy Chinn has a few of those and he may not even be on the team next year.

[Fenrir]

Defense priority signings should be DB and Luvu in that order. Burns should have definitely been handled before now though, either through trade or extension. Absolutely unacceptable for him to walk. Yet it appears he’ll be doing that very thing.