11/05/24
March 05, 2010
Panthers Cut Jake Delhomme: The Carolina Panthers cut starting quarterback Jake Delhomme Thursday, almost one year after signing him to a five-year, $42.5 million extension that included $20 million in guaranteed money. Delhomme led the team to a Super Bowl berth but played poorly since a six-turnover performance against the Arizona Cardinals in the 2009 NFC Championship game. He threw a career-high 18 interceptions last season despite playing just 11 games.
OOh that is sad. Yes, Jake was bad for two years but don't hate him for the good times too. Peppers, take a walk "if you feel like doing it," just like like every other play.
posted by gfinsf at 10:23 AM on March 05, 2010
There is a God.
But -- Jake is and would be a very capable backup QB. That's all he was ever supposed to be. Not a gilded franchise cornerstone. The Panthers were fools to try to depend on him as their main man. And to stick with the idea for as long as they did.
He would probably also be a good relief pitcher - the starter is having a bad day and Jake comes in and lights it up in the second half. But that's not the way the QB position is typically managed, so it will likely never happen.
See if the Saints welcome him back home to back up their man. Payton knows how to straighten out a QB. They can put him through a bayou-style pick six 12 step program.
Also, Jake is probably still better than the starters on some of the other teams, so he won't be going to live in a major appliance shipping carton and taking his mail general delivery anytime soon.
posted by beaverboard at 10:50 AM on March 05, 2010
Don't pin everything on Jake. In Panthers games I saw last year Superstar Steve Smith giving up on routes and not breaking for throws accounted for a share of those picks.
Easy to make even the best of QB's look bad if your receivers don't run every route hard and make a play on every throw.
Who is Peppers? Does he play football? Didn't notice him last year at all.
posted by cixelsyd at 11:43 AM on March 05, 2010
"The Panthers are still on the hook for nearly $13 million in guaranteed money from the contract extension they gave him last spring, but making the move now keeps them from suffering any salary cap consequences because the NFL has entered into an uncapped year."
This is exactly the reason, besides performance, for the move. Look for other underperforming, aging players with big contracts to get similar treatment as teams find some benefit to the cap-less year.
posted by billsaysthis at 12:38 PM on March 05, 2010
Yes this cap-less year is going to be hard on a lot of players as owners rush to revamp their rosters in anticipation of salary changes to come. When one of the leagues leading rushers is axed ie Thomas Jones of the Jets it underscores the point.
I think the owners are about to show the players why the current system and CBA is good for everybody and why the players need to be very carefull. I think the NFL has an great system for keeping the league competitive across both large and small markets. They share in the revenue and benefit from the great decisions that led to a league that has not had the problems that say MLB has had. A lot of these players cannot run their own lives all that well, let alone make good decisions regarding the future of the NFL. For players it has always been about the money NOW. The owners have a stake in trying to ensure a healthy league for a long future. No cap will benefit a select few player in a select few markets, but it can't be good for the majority of the players across the league.
posted by Atheist at 01:48 PM on March 05, 2010
He'd be owed $4.16 million in 2010, $5.12 million in 2011 and $3.4 million in 2012, so no, I don't think Jake will be living in a cardboard box anytime soon.
Wish i could get a severence package like that.
posted by dviking at 04:01 PM on March 05, 2010
For players it has always been about the money NOW
As opposed to what?
A lot of these players cannot run their own lives all that well, let alone make good decisions regarding the future of the NFL.
How are the players obligated to make decisions for the best of the NFL? Do you subsume your own needs for the company you work for? "Gee, I'd like to accept your job offer for 150% of what I make, but it would hurt my current employer." It's amazing how free markets and free will and the American Way get binned as soon as we're talking about athletes making money.
posted by yerfatma at 05:17 PM on March 05, 2010
You may have misunderstood my statement, actually I may have not made my thought very clear or expressed it correctly. I do not feel the individual athlete has any responsibility to the league. He is only responsible to make the best deal for himself. That said the players collectively (as a union) have a responsibility to themselves collectively to ensure the best environment for all player salaries collectively.
This is a real conflict and frankly in the free enterprise the terms free agent and union member are in a way an oxy-moron. You really cannot have unrestricted free agency and coexist within a collective union. This is why collectively they restrict free agency as part of the CBA. Sometimes very highly paid players do have to sacrifice for the greater good of all players and why I feel that in the long run the salary cap is good for the players collectively and on average, while it hurts certain individual players.
If the players greed, or the owners greed force the league to become less competitive across markets, it will be the players who suffer the most.
I can't help but see the news today where Jake Delome is in tears over his being cut by the Panthers. I can understand his sorrow but in a world where millions have lost their jobs and homes, it is hard to cry with a guy that lost his job due to poor performance and will still be paid 12 million dollars over the next three years in guarantee money, not to mention his lucrative NFL pension upon retirement. Forgive me if I don't feel to sorry for the players rotten deal with the league.
Yes yerfatma at times I do put the needs of my company ahead of my short term needs when it ensures that there will be a company to keep paying me for years to come as opposed to making more in the short term if ti in fact kills the company. Didn't the auto workers do this to themselves?
posted by Atheist at 05:43 PM on March 05, 2010
I misread the title as "Pantheon cuts Jake.. " I was surprised that the Pope Squatter et al had that much power. I'm going to bed now.
posted by apoch at 04:26 AM on March 06, 2010
You really cannot have unrestricted free agency and coexist within a collective union. This is why collectively they restrict free agency as part of the CBA.
You'll have to explain the first part to me. The second part I don't think I'll ever grasp. The CBA restricts free agency because it's the result of haggling between players and owners: players want unfettered free agency, owners want no free agency. The CBA just meets somewhere between those two points.
posted by yerfatma at 07:48 AM on March 06, 2010
Any speculation on where he lands? Denver seems to be a good fit because Orton isn't the long term answer and Simms doesn't scare anyone (although what he did in those Reebok commercials last years was cool). He may have a shot at the starting job there if (when Orton) fails. Not sure what kind of upgrade he would be though.
Also he may be a fit in Arizona, depending on how much faith the Whiz has in Leinhert.
posted by jc at 11:45 AM on March 08, 2010
See ya, Jake. Hopefully the door will hit you and Pep on the butts on y'alls way out.