A little clarification on the DW situation, cut designations, and how it affects the cap

[panthers55]

Because the money you save is enough to get more production overall on your team

Because we haven't even tried

Again, haven't tried

you'd be surprised to find that in the last two drafts there's a distinct proportion of guys from rounds 4-6 that have proven they could get half of what DeAngelo's churned

No, you don't use that logic on the QB position because it is the most important and influential position on the field today. In contrast, this logic applies well to RB, which is today arguably one of the least valuable and disposable positions on the field.

Um, that sort of stuff happens to backs on every other team as well. But if the Patriots or the Giants don't feel the need to pay more than 10 million to their running back core, why the hell should we?

Your perception of their value on this team is way too high.

It's not very often teams cut players with no consequence. Just recently, the Giants racked up 6.6 million in dead money for 2013 alone after cutting several veterans.

In the long-term view we have a lot of money strapped already and by that time DeAngelo will be 32. It's not a terrible idea to get rid of bad contracts given to players that don't fit the team's best interests in their future vision. The Colts just did this on a massive scale last year and had a huge amount of dead money, and despite that the players they replaced those overpaid vets with helped the team reach the playoffs after going 2-14 just one year before. What happened with the Colts was they fired their GM from the prior season, hired a new one, and he looked over the roster, assessed the players' individual values and figured out who had a bad contract given their future value to the team. One of those players, Dallas Clark, was a guy who at one point had been a valuable asset to the team (which is why he got the contract he did) but had two underwhelming performances the last two years largely due to injury and whose career seemed to be waning. So they cut him, took a cap hit of over 5 million for 2012 and drafted 2 tight ends that combined for over 800 yards and 5 touchdowns.

Here's another way you could look at cutting Williams and designating him post-June 1st. Let's say the Panthers dump some of their larger contracts and end up clearing to about 12 million under the cap. Then they decide to snip Williams from the roster and designate him a June 1st cut. If they plan to sign about 3 affordable and reliable vets to fill some glaring holes, they can still do that even if they cut Williams and take a 1.5 million hit, and there's an easy explanation for this. ...When you draft your picks at the end of April, they don't immediately go to the front office and sign those guys. None of those picks need to be signed until July. And by that time, the June 1st designation will come into effect and open up the millions needed to sign those draft picks.

It isn't that hard to figure out.

I hate those posts where you cut and paste a post and reply to every sentence as if you have actually responded to each point. BTW we did the same thing in 2010 that Indy did in 2012 but with different results so no we don't want to go there.

I will respond to the last part which is all that on a cursory look appears worth responding to. You are mixing draft picks and signing those three reliable vets in free agency and the rules for each don't apply the same. The reason you don't cut Williams now and designate it a June 1st cut is because the cap hit rises not goes down. There is no reason you would do that. Secondly if we are already 10 million over the cap which rises to 11.4 over the cap if we cut Williams, then to get to your magical 12 million under the cap would require us to shave 23 million off the cap. Exactly how do you expect us to do that, Einstein??

The only way we even get close to that number is if we restructure several contracts and still having to cut a few more like Gamble and Edwards

And in free agency your top 53 contracts all have to fit under the cap at all times.

So try harder, from what you said it is apparently too hard for you to figure out.

[frash.exe]

I hate those posts where you cut and paste a post and reply to every sentence as if you have actually responded to each point.

they're better than the constant bullshit manufacturing you churn out on a regular basis, so I'm just going to do my thing. If it annoys you, take it in stride knowing that what you post annoys everybody else.

BTW we did the same thing in 2010 that Indy did in 2012 but with different results so no we don't want to go there.

Nope, Indy's plan was far better tuned. They didn't even have an uncapped year to benefit from dumping player salaries and did a much better job because they knew who they should've cut, they didn't just indiscriminately cut every single veteran on the team, and they didn't follow that up with spending potentially over 200 million dollars in "core" player contract extensions either. They also strategically filled some of those weaknesses instead of not replacing them at all which is exactly what we did at least for the 2010 season.

I will respond to the last part which is all that on a cursory look appears worth responding to. You are mixing draft picks and signing those three reliable vets in free agency and the rules for each don't apply the same.

The reason you don't cut Williams now and designate it a June 1st cut is because the cap hit rises not goes down.

Hey did you see the part where I said the cap eventually increases and gives you a net gain after June 1st if you have the flexibility. I believe I illustrated what a flexible scenario would look like. Alternatively you could keep that contract on the books and do the cutting after June 1st if your cap numbers aren't that favorable.

There is no reason you would do that. Secondly if we are already 10 million over the cap which rises to 11.4 over the cap if we cut Williams, then to get to your magical 12 million under the cap would require us to shave 23 million off the cap. Exactly how do you expect us to do that, Einstein??

It's a number I just threw off the top of my head for a hypothetical scenario, I could've said 6 instead, and went with a smaller number, and would've gotten just as bullshit a response from you because that's all you spew.

The only way we even get close to that number is if we restructure several contracts and still having to cut a few more like Gamble and Edwards

well from reading your posts you don't really have any strong reservations for cutting gamble and Edwards is an aging vet DT that can't stay on the field and in all reality there's a good chance they're both cut before free agency hits so come up with some more debatable cuts bruh

And in free agency your top 53 contracts all have to fit under the cap at all times.

Listen if I hypothetically respond to this with "no poo" are you going to go into a tirade of your take on my intelligence level and start bringing up your background with learning centers again?

So try harder, from what you said it is apparently too hard for you to figure out.

Are these post-concluding one liner intelligence jabs like a requirement for you?

[panthers55]

they're better than the constant bullshit manufacturing you churn out on a regular basis, so I'm just going to do my thing. If it annoys you, take it in stride knowing that what you post annoys everybody else.

Nope, Indy's plan was far better tuned. They didn't even have an uncapped year to benefit from dumping player salaries and did a much better job because they knew who they should've cut, they didn't just indiscriminately cut every single veteran on the team, and they didn't follow that up with spending potentially over 200 million dollars in "core" player contract extensions either.

Hey did you see the part where I said the cap eventually increases and gives you a net gain after June 1st if you have the flexibility. I believe I illustrated what a flexible scenario would look like. Alternatively you could keep that contract on the books and do the cutting after June 1st if your cap numbers aren't that favorable.

It's a number I just threw off the top of my head for a hypothetical scenario, I could've said 6 instead, and went with a smaller number, and would've gotten just as bullshit a response from you because that's all you spew.

well from reading your posts you don't really have any strong reservations for cutting gamble and Edwards is an aging vet DT that can't stay on the field and in all reality there's a good chance they're both cut before free agency hits so come up with some more debatable cuts bruh

Listen if I hypothetically respond to this with "no poo" are you going to go into a tirade of your take on my intelligence level and start bringing up your background with learning centers again?

Are these post-concluding one liner intelligence jabs like a requirement for you?

I don't mind debating football with you but there is little I can discern that is football conversation in that post. I see speculation, I see quite a bit of off the wall extraneous material which is not germaine to the conversation and I see the usual raging bull personal attacks. But I can't see where you have anything new original or thought provoking so I will move on. As for the one liner intelligence jabs, to use your logic,if it annoys you I guess I will keep it up.

Why not stay tonight at a Holiday Inn Express, then tomorrow when you log in we will bow to your intelligence. Then again, maybe not..............

[frash.exe]

sorry you couldn't come up with anything logical to contribute to the thread. would be happy to have you back posting in here once you smarten up and stop complaining about personal attacks when you constantly subversively insult people on here, but in the meantime, can you erase all the garbage you posted so it doesn't pollute my thread any longer?

[panthers55]

sorry you couldn't come up with anything logical to contribute to the thread. would be happy to have you back posting in here once you smarten up and stop complaining about personal attacks when you constantly subversively insult people on here, but in the meantime, can you erase all the garbage you posted so it doesn't pollute my thread any longer?

Your thread?? That is funny. CRA has taken over your thread and made you an afterthought. As for the personal attacks, I don't usually go there because I have found when you trade insults with someone else it cheapens you as well as them. I do admit that some folks like you do sometime bring out the worse in me. Doesn't make it right but it happens. Sorry if it hit close to home. If not, then just ignore it like I do most of what you post.

[frash.exe]

so much for "moving on" less than 15 minutes later

[panthers55]

so much for "moving on" less than 15 minutes later

So do you want a cookie because you are very good at being a troll?

[frash.exe]

cookie? no....

Just follow through on what you post. If you're moving on then you're moving on. If you're moving on and then minutes later reply because something I wrote sticks in your craw then you just prove how sensitive you are.

you like to think you're so smart, but you fall for the most textbook of tricks

[panthers55]

cookie? no....

Just follow through on what you post. If you're moving on then you're moving on. If you're moving on and then minutes later reply because something I wrote sticks in your craw then you just prove how sensitive you are.

you like to think you're so smart, but you fall for the most textbook of tricks

So you like to manipulate and trick people into responding to your troll posts. Congratulations, you have no life and I apparently don't either because I responded. Still someone who spends time trying to bait others is pretty pathetic in my opinion.

[frash.exe]

I'm feeling really compelled to search pot kettle on google images, but I won't lest I be accused of p55 for having no life

must....resist...urge...to...troll

[Thorrez]

Why would he restructure? Because he can't get close to what we are going to give him elsewhere. Remember that the majority of his salary including all the guaranteed money has already been paid although it hasn't been recouped. So the 9.6 million in dead cap space has already been paid to him. He is getting 4.8 million in real money this year, 5 million next year for example. No one is going to give him a big payday. There are too many backs out there. Bradshaw, Turner and several others are out there. As for being creative, it is really about working with him to keep him here. If he wants to go elsewhere it won't be a catastrophe. But I think he will be more than willing to restructure.

The point is NOT if he can get $4.75M elsewhere. As you say he probably wont, but given looking at Forte (7.5 a year), McFadden (almost 6) and Johnson (10!!) signings. I think a 3-4M contract is very possible (especially as he will not cost anything in a trade if he is cut).

The point is that 9,6M in dead cap. You do not build a winner by wasting that kind of cap space getting nothing in return when you are already in cap trouble.

If we had a lot of cap to use, yes he would be long gone.

And I know he is payed the bonus already.

And as I say, next year we the dead cap hit at "only" 6.4M and have to pay him 5.75M, he is gone.

[Thorrez]

If he is a June 1 cut he creates 3.4 mill. You certainly can find a quality player for that.

That only leave the little problem that we get a $6.4M hit next year.

We are not "one last run" mode. Creating a larger problem next year is not a good solution.

[CRA]

That only leave the little problem that we get a $6.4M hit next year.

We are not "one last run" mode. Creating a larger problem next year is not a good solution.

still creates cap room next year....

Gonna have to eat money on some of the contracts to be good while working out of the Hurney mess....

[Thorrez]

still creates cap room next year....

Gonna have to eat money on some of the contracts to be good while working out of the Hurney mess....

No, we get the same $6.4M hit if we cut him (that we will). Only with the option of spreading some of that to 2015.

Lets agree we are in a Hurney mess and move on...