Don't expect to see many resignings in the 2010 offseason by the Panthers
by James Dator on Jan 5, 2010 7:51 PM EST
Email
PrintDarin Gantt was featured on the 'Primetime with the Packman' show on WFNZ in Charlotte. Pardon me if I don't quote verbatim (I was driving home from work).
Essentially Gantt was saying that outside of Julius Peppers it's highly unlikely the Panthers resign any players this off season. No new deal for Thomas Davis, no new deal for Richard Marshall, no new deal for Matt Moore... basically we could see some free agent movement, but not much other noise from the Panthers.
I'll explain more, after the jump.
According to Gantt (I haven't been able to find another source) an internal corporate document was leaked telling player representatives and the player's union that the owners wanted to cut the salary cap by 20% league wide before a new CBA could be established.
Essentially owners feel that they were overly lenient in the last two CBAs and it allowed player salaries to become vastly overblown. This proves to be the biggest sticking point in the negotiations, and what could ultimately lead to a lockout in 2011.
What this means, essentially, is that teams would have anywhere from $20 to $30 million less to spend on players, should the owners get their way. This is why it isn't prudent to sign Thomas Davis or Richard Marshall at the moment. It could also potentially make negotiations with Julius Peppers difficult.
If the team were to commit big money to any, or all of these players in 2010 only to have the owners 'win' then a major portion of their salary cap would be spent on a few players. Think how cash strapped the Panthers were in 2009 with Peppers' franchise tag, then multiply that by three... that's what is at risk should the Panthers tip their hand now and pony up new deals to any or all of these players.
With the additional two year increase in when players can become free agents we essentially have Thomas Davis locked up through the 2011 season, so Gantt's reasoning is 'why have them sign too early'. This could actually play into the Panthers' hands as it allows them to get a good look at Thomas Davis to ensure he's back 100% from his injury, rather than having to franchise or work out a deal sight unseen.
Other Note: Gantt when asked said he doesn't believe the Panthers have any interest in Denver Broncos' WR Brandon Marshall stating that he doesn't think Marshall is 'Their kind of guy'.
68 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
James..
Please, sir, please don’t give me a heart attack like that again. Aha!
“it’s highly unlikely the Panthers resign any players this off season. No new deal for Thomas Davis, no new deal for Richard Marshall, no new deal for Matt Moore…”
I thought that was leading into the realm of “restructuring the team” and “efficient back-up play means we don’t need them”. I didn’t realize there would be an extra two years to work with. Good thing I continued to read instead of going straight to the comments with “OMMFGZ” :)
Helpful reminder for James at seasons end: 2nd Rnd CSR Fan Draft Pick.
Interesting..
‘!!1111WERDOOMED’ for some reason turned into an image..
Helpful reminder for James at seasons end: 2nd Rnd CSR Fan Draft Pick.
worst fear realized in this article. I wanted Pep back, but not at the loss of Moore, Davis, and Marshall (if possible).
SAY IT AIN’T SO!!!
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying.
It’s not an either/or prospect.
All Gantt is saying is that there’s no reason to lock up Moore, Davis or Marshall long term now, when the Panthers can still franchise players.
Obviously, the team can’t franchise all three… but Davis and Moore can be franchised, and Marshall’s deal doesn’t expire until after 2010, when he can be franchised then.
Just don’t expect early extensions when it’s not a pressing issue.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
Of the three mentioned, Davis is the only one franchise worthy.
I would not pay Moore or Marshall the avg of the top players at there position. It comes down to the result of the CBA and if Davis, Marshall, and Moore, among others, will be restricted.
Will Parker
by WillParker81 on Jan 6, 2010 12:40 AM EST up reply actions
Without Marshall..
Our coverage will take a severe hit.. Assuming next season is any bit a resemblance of the one we just finished..
Marshall finished as our best coverage CB, meanwhile our “shut down” corner Gamble finished as our worst. Munnerlyn sits in the middle of the two. Wesley and Wilson exempt due to small sample size.
Helpful reminder for James at seasons end: 2nd Rnd CSR Fan Draft Pick.
I'm not saying he is not good, but that he is not franchise worthy.
BTW, way all the Gamble hate? He is a high quality player.
Will Parker
by WillParker81 on Jan 6, 2010 12:49 AM EST up reply actions
No hate..
Just looking at the stats, and statistically, he was our weakest link.
Helpful reminder for James at seasons end: 2nd Rnd CSR Fan Draft Pick.
That can be PARTIALLY attributed to respect by opposing QB's.
Based on what I saw from him this season, he made many, many plays. He did have 16 passes defensed, tops on the team to go with 4 INT’s. Marshall had 13 PD and 4 INT’s.
Will Parker
True..
Though, week 17 exempt, Marshall has fewer missed tackles (4 vs 9) with more overall tackles (86 vs 70), allows 5% less completions (and subsequently has less overall yardage allowed), has allowed a long that is 23 yards shorter than Gambles longest allowed pass, has given up less YAC, 1 touchdown (opposed to Gambles 2), and are tied with 4 interceptions. QB’s average a rating of 70.3 when targeting the receiver Marshall is covering, meanwhile they average 85.4 when targeting a receiver that Gamble is covering. Marshall & Gamble typically stick to their respective sides of the field instead of shadowing receivers.
In Gambles defense, he does have more passed defended as you mentioned, has one less penalty, is a slightly better pass rusher, and is above average against the run (top 20) while Marshall is far below average.
Coverage wise, though, Gamble is ranked 88 of 108 CB’s receiving over 25% of total snaps @ CB for their respective team.
Like I said, I’m not hating on him, I think he’s an exceptional player that’s probably had a down year. Marshall & Munnerlyn just happened to have a better year coverage wise.
Helpful reminder for James at seasons end: 2nd Rnd CSR Fan Draft Pick.
I see the stats in the 1st paragraph as a minimal difference.
I have a couple question as to where you got the ranking numbers and how are they determined?
Ultimately I view our entire pass defense as one of our strengths and do not see much cause for criticism.
Will Parker
ProFootballFocus.com – They review every player on every snap to get stats as well as numerically grade (0 being average, anything above 1 above average, below -1 below average is basically how I take it) each position (such as coverage, run support, etc) and then have an overall.
I agree that they were certainly a strength but the only way to get even stronger is to identify the weakness. I read somewhere at Rotoworld.com that Marshall was projected to excel this year while Gamble wasn’t. The differing factor being that Marshall is more of a physical player than Gamble is (and physicality is what Meek’s system strives on). If Gamble tuned himself into being a bit more physical, he’d probably be a monster.
Helpful reminder for James at seasons end: 2nd Rnd CSR Fan Draft Pick.
Gamble does make a lot of good tackles in run support, tho
I compared his aggressiveness in that phase last year to that of Lucas, who’d shy away from laying the wood to runners on his side. I don’t think that’s a weakness of Gamble’s.
Where he does grade low, however, is when he gambles on a pick, and winds up getting beat in coverage — that happens too often to suit me. Now maybe he only pulls that when he’s got help from a safety; I can’t tell — the telecast doesn’t always show the total D alignment.
I think he’s picked up his play from early games of the year.
But this started out as a critique of Marshall’s CB play — overall, I’m satisfied with what he’s done, his first full year as a starting CB. And I really like the play of the nickel/dime units as a whole, when Munnerlyn and Wesley are in. The more games they play together, the better Meeks looks as a DC!
Exactly...
The terms of the current CBA allows for no cap, but players with less than 6 years in the league are restricted free agents. Basically, if another team wants to sign the player, the Panthers are allowed to match the offer to retain their rights. If they do not match the offer, they get a draft pick. Usually, they match the player up with a draft round (which equals a pay rate). If no other team tries to sign the player, the Panthers pay them that rate. IIRC, they did this with Jeff King last year.
Sounds like we'd be more likely to not afford Peppers
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
There's alot of gray area right now that could be worked around provided both sides are ready to play ball.
It could be worth it to sign Peppers to a really front loaded deal with most of the money coming in 2010 without a cap, then decline it from there in case a new CBA hits the cap hard.
There are alot of options and openness which makes it a weird offseason.
The moral of this story is don’t be too surprised or afraid if we get to the end of the offseason and you see players franchised with no long term deals. It might be part of the master plan.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
So what have we learned?
Players make too much money, and owners are greedy. They should lower the cap and also force a reduction in ticket/psl prices.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
Simply put... yes
However, veterans would have you believe that the players aren’t making too much money as a whole, but the rookies are vastly overpaid.
Most owners would agree with this too. The league should never be in the situation where poor teams are looking to trade out of the top 10 to avoid paying a giant rookie contract.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
I agree 100%
Rookie pay scale
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
Technically he didn't do anything wrong
Shouldn’t blame the player if the system permits it
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
lol, it's true
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
Here here
Any idea how much next season will increase?
by parkershawn2001 on Jan 5, 2010 10:11 PM EST up reply actions
none of this makes any sense
I don’t see how they think this is going to make the players start signing contracts for less money. Like all the players that should get 10 mill a year or more are going to magically give it up? That’s not fair to them. Baseball doesn’t do this bs. Its a 100% injury rate in this league these guys deserve the money they make.
But since the redskins are desperate and gave AH that big payday and al davis had to pay nmamdi asomougha (?check the spelling on that1) a boatload of cash because he didn’t like how the deangelo hall situation went and wanted out…now we are going to lose 20 to 30 mill in cap space? So now we can only have 2 stars per team? They are going to leave and go play for another league that will pay them if the NFL refuses to. Do I have this right? Someone please break this down to me like I’m an idiot please
Richardson you better not screw this up for me!
by STEVEN 785 on Jan 5, 2010 10:44 PM EST via mobile reply actions
It’s not about making the players sign for less money, it’s about less money being offered in the first place.
Take any deal you like and reduce it by 20%. It’s a rudimentary system, but it works. Haynesworth signed for 7 years, $100 million, $41 million guaranteed. Imagine 7 years, $80 million, $33 million guaranteed.
That’s nothing to sneeze at, not by a long shot. You may think it’s unfair to the players, but thats another argument. Really, NFL players have nowhere to go that will pay them anything close to the NFL.
The highest paid player in the CFL made $400,000 in 2009. They have a salary cap in the Canadian Football league of $4.2 million…. for the entire team. Even with a reduction to the NFL you’re looking at a cap of around $80 million dollars.
J.P Losman was rumored to be the highest paid UFL player. It was an undisclosed deal, but it’s hard to imagine it was worth more than $1 million.
Baseball doesn’t have this problem because the top teams have 81 home sellouts in big markets. The NFL can’t even touch the amount of revenue in MLB. Trust me when I say the last thing that we want, especially in Carolina, is for the NFL to become cap free like MLB.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
So the nfl expects that players will just take less money now? Just because it has decided?
Richardson you better not screw this up for me!
by STEVEN 785 on Jan 6, 2010 12:44 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I don't see any issue with it..
Rookies are severely overpaid, I’ve been saying for quite a while that it’s ridiculous to pay so much for someone who has just as much chance at being a bust as a superstar. Players need prove themselves before they get the big contracts.
Meanwhile, I don’t think the vets are going to mind too much so long as the rook’s are scaled back.
Helpful reminder for James at seasons end: 2nd Rnd CSR Fan Draft Pick.
The rookies I completely understand. I think there should be a cap on the first rounders period. Like in no way in your first 5 years in the nfl can they make more than 20 mill…and then the money for the latter rounds becomes less and less.
I’m just having trouble seeing … let’s say julius peppers for example…thinking ok I made 17 mill in 09 now I’m going to sign a contract for less than 10 mill a year for however many years. And let’s look at it like this is 2011 and we can’t front load it…I don’t see him or peyton manning taking a huge paycut. This kind of thing leads to a strike no? And if neither side budges then that means the nfl just starts over?
Maybe everyone on our team will understand and take the pay cut and then the only teams that will be screwed will be the redskins,raiders,pats,giants,colts you get the picture. Or we lose peppers to a team that will pay him what he wants and keep everyone else and then no super bowl. My head is spinning right now.
Richardson you better not screw this up for me!
by STEVEN 785 on Jan 6, 2010 3:00 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Nothing's in stone right now.
It’s doubtful the owners will get what they want, unlikely everything will remain the same. This is the fight the CBA is based on, and why there could be a lockout.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
I disagree with this.
I respect Jerry Richardson’s decision. Really I do, but something here is very screwy. Richardson is doing it backwards. He’s designing contracts in a way to make up for a future salary cap. Meanwhile, the rest of the teams in the NFL will be signing players like crazy, and they’ll all have good teams while we don’t. That’s not how you do it. You set the cap, and then you design the contracts to follow it, not the other way around.
If we let the majority of the players go this year, especially Matt Moore, Julius Peppers, Keydrick Vincent, and the rest, we’ll be absolute garbage next year.
"Once again the trousers of evil are yanked down by the mocking hands of justice!"-Revshawn
I don't think it's saying we let them go.
We just hang onto them by other means than extensions.. then we offer extensions once the cap is in the place, so while other teams are maxed out our contracts are already in line with the new cap.
I could be wrong but that’s how I took it.
Helpful reminder for James at seasons end: 2nd Rnd CSR Fan Draft Pick.
How would they hold onto them?
I’m confused. I mean, once the Super Bowl is over they’re free to sign with any team right? CBA or no CBA? I love my team, but just resigning Julius Peppers to a contract and ignoring the rest of our playmakers is no way to keep what we’ve got going. Makes me nervous this does.
"Once again the trousers of evil are yanked down by the mocking hands of justice!"-Revshawn
From what I understand we have 2 franchise tags this off-season
Because of the lack of a CBA, teams are allowed to franchise two players. With that being said, it would make sense to franchise Moore and Davis if Peppers will sign a flong term deal that pays him a shit-load of money in 2010 b/c of no cap, and then after 2010 we can re-sign Davis and/or Moore once a cap is in place.
That’s what I’m gathering from the post and the comments.
That's also how I understand it.
Though would we have the space to resign Moore long term while he was still technically a back-up vs letting him officially take the starting job and possibly break out, demanding big $$$ next year? That’s what intrigues me.
I wonder if we could just convince everybody to sign 1 year deals? haha.
Helpful reminder for James at seasons end: 2nd Rnd CSR Fan Draft Pick.
Still a lot of players left up in the air, though.
Helpful reminder for James at seasons end: 2nd Rnd CSR Fan Draft Pick.
It's still pretty weird though!
I mean, franchise tags cost way more than resigning them to a big contract. If push comes to shove why not just resign them all to big contracts? None of this really makes that much sense to me.
I’m pretty close to shoving this in the corner as a bork story, but then again Darin Gantt has been pretty credible as a writer and a reporter. Unless they just plain ask for these huge, ridiculous deals that make no sense in the long term when there is a new agreement in place, I see no reason why we can’t resign them all with the salary cap space we have.
Matt Moore, Thomas Davis, Richard Marshall, Julius Peppers, and Keydrick Vincent. Those are all players that we need to keep if we’re going to contend in 2010. The only one replaceable of all of these guys is Keydrick Vincent, and that’s only because we have that other guard we’ve trained behind him the past year. If Jerry Richardson doesn’t spend much money in order to prove a point that we need to get this agreement signed for the future of the NFL, it’s not going to do much for our team right now at this very moment.
Bah. Humbug.
"Once again the trousers of evil are yanked down by the mocking hands of justice!"-Revshawn
Again, this is just from my understanding so I could be wrong..
But I believe that A) The cap would be smaller so contracts that normally wouldn’t be a big deal suddenly are once the cap returns, B) Being 2010 is uncapped, we can spend as much as we want and have no repercussions (so long as it doesn’t extend into 2011), C) I’d imagine no one wants to pay players for a lock out in 2011 (though there may be some sort of clause to avoid such).
For example (assuming I’m correct – again, someone correct if wrong) if we use up all but, say, 5% of our cap on long term deals, we play 2010, 2011 locks out, then we return in 2012 with a new CBA that reduces the cap by 20%. I’ll just randomly say we free up another 5% off of contracts ending (I don’t know what position we’ll be in by that time, so it’s just a # that fits my example), that leaves us at 10% of the old cap.. Now we’re 10% over the new cap. I’m not sure how that would work, though. If anyone knows; would players be forced to renegotiate? Or would contracts be allowed to finish before having to adhere to the new cap? Or would we have to get rid of players to make it under the cap?
Helpful reminder for James at seasons end: 2nd Rnd CSR Fan Draft Pick.
we are in the same boat
What do we call this boat of ours? S.S. WTF?
Richardson you better not screw this up for me!
by STEVEN 785 on Jan 6, 2010 3:06 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Lol. That's hilarious.
“This is your captain Al Davis speaking. Welcome to my world.”
"Once again the trousers of evil are yanked down by the mocking hands of justice!"-Revshawn
Some of them are
With no CBA, players need six seasons of experience to hit unrestricted FA. Marshall, Davis, and Moore fall under that category. So we either tag or tender them. With a CBA in place, this whole point is moot, as there will be no lockout.
Is that correct James?
The early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
by Flowing Willow on Jan 6, 2010 1:55 AM EST up reply actions
no football
what are the chances that the original source of the info is just wrong? some of you may think the players get too much money, especially rookies, but you got to look at it from multiple perspectives. These players are the labor expense of the business, and all good businesses increase profits by raising prices and reducing labor costs. I don’t know the percentages, but if the owners want to reduce players’ salaries, the difference goes straight into their pockets. My theory is they want their labor expenses to be comparable to other corporations or businesses, or even other sports. But the players are at so much risk because of injuries. They think that if the amount of revenue goes up, so should their salaries. But it doesn’t work that way. If you are supposed to get paid 8 bucks an hour, and the companies profits double, you’ll still get your 8 bucks an hour. In the end, I think we are gonna have some sort of lock-out/strike before 2012.
It hurts the players the most when this happens. Owners have other business ventures, and their age is irrelevant. D-Will is 26 yrs old now. Imagine he plays next year, and then he doesn’t play when he’s 28 because the season was cancelled. Then he starts again when he’s 29. At that time, Stew will be 25, which, IMO, is the main reason we let D-Will go if we’re forced to choose between the two.
It sounds like there is going to be a lock out
because you know there is no way the Players Union will accept a 20% reduction without something tangible in return (all contracts guaranteed?)
I blog the Carolina Panthers at www.catscratchreader.com
no way no how
Will the owners sign on for completely guaranteed contracts…not when every player is one play away from a career ending injury….not gonna happen
See, I agree with both of you.
This is what makes the situation so screwy.
Players should be guaranteed some degree of financial security, as only the top 10% of players get any kind of decent guaranteed money in a contract, and players are, as you say “one play away from a career ending injury”.
Conversely, the idea that a player should become a bane to their franchise because they managed to stay injury free for the duration of their deal is also skewed. Something’s got to give.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
fairly unique
This is what makes the NFL fairly unique in professional sports. Players have to play hard and hope their play will demand a better contract. Yet the rookie pay doesn’t fall into the same ideal of a meritocracy.
Ideally we would see a rookie pay scale which would allow more money to veteran’s. The optimist in me hopes that Goodell is angling for a middle ground which would spread the wealth to veterans and reduce the rookie pay scale.
In that scenario the salary cap could be lowered making owners happy.
counterpoint
on the same note, NHL players play awfully hard and are also a moment away from a career (or life) threatening injury and they get guaranteed money.
Very true
Don’t ask me why, but the NHL is a weird beast. You very rarely see a player sustain an injury that keeps them out for the entire season, compared to the NFL.
Every team in the NFL has at least one player on IR for the entire season.
Right now, the NHL only have two players across the entire league who are out for the entire season.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
Love of the game?
Plus the NHL doesn’t have an absurd rule which requires a team to sit someone for an entire year for the sake of roster expediency…
One would think they’d recognize the need for an MLB-esque disabled list.
I agree with a DL idea.
I think the rule should be thus:
“If a player is placed on IR the team can sign a free agent to fill that players vacated roster spot. If a player is placed on a short term DL the team can only call up players from their practice squad to fill the void short term”
Then all you need to do is double the number of spots on the practice squad for all teams.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
devil's advocate
Just to play the role of Devil’s advocate, in the context of spreading wealth to veteran’ this could be a can of worms. Veteran’s cost more so teams will be less likely to hold onto vet’s as opposed to unproven potential (read cheaper players)
If more roster spots are available for coaches to use, you better believe they will use them. This is a surprisingly complex problem and one I am glad I am not required to resolve.
really?
only 10 percent get any decent guaranteed money? what is the minimum salary? how many ppl in the united states make that. everybody who plays in the nfl or even is on the practice squad should be financially set for quite awhile unless they dont know how to manage their money
Fuck trees I climb buoys motherfucker!!!!
salary and guaranteed money are two different things.
The vast majority of practice squad and depth players are lucky to get $10,000 or so guaranteed, if any at all.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
They get $5200 per week
Just looked it up. It looks like it goes to $5700 per week, next year.
That's not guaranteed though
If a guy is dropped from a practice squad in week 2 for example and aren’t picked up by another team they only made $11,400 for the season, right?
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
One good thing about the uncapped year.
If you want to cut someone, you can take the whole hit this year. It’ll kill your cash flow, but you won’t have to eat committed money over several years.
This CBA wrangling will probably go til the 11th hour
As in most major labor negotiations, the two sides (owners and NFLPA) have decidedly different vested interests to protect and/or improve. This is a can of worms, made more difficult because of concessions made in the past. Nobody wants his ox to be the one that’s gored.
Our speculations as to how this’ll turn out are, in the end, fruitless, because we really know very little about the nuances of current arrangements and agreements, and there are a LOT of very high priced attorneys scratching their heads about it, too.
The only ray of optimism I can see is that the one vested interest that ALL have in common is that — if nobody plays in 2011, nobody makes money. (Except maybe currently guaranteed player contracts; I don’t profess to know anything about that.) So after a lot more posturing, and talking tough, eventually, they’ll come together seriously to effect some solution. I hope.
Sooooo...
Essentially- we have some time before we have to worry about losing Moore and T. Davis, right?
How do you think the fans will react to a lockout?
How did they react the last time there was a strike? That was way before my time, sorry. : D
The early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Before my time as well..
Though I’ll volunteer to play as a temp. replacement for a year so the league can proceed. I only want 250k :)
Helpful reminder for James at seasons end: 2nd Rnd CSR Fan Draft Pick.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Cat Scratch Reader
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
