Panthers GM Gettleman Fired

[Jet Nut]

5 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Are you in this much denial over everything the man does or doesn't do? It was all over the place. The whole country knew. Here's one link:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/jets-cut-veteran-lb-david-harris-cost-cutting-move-article-1.3225979

“If we can’t facilitate a trade,” Maccagnan said, “we will move on from Eric.” 

Good Lord. It's not even like most people are even pissed that we cut him. But to deny this obvious - not to mention recent - history is just silliness.

And yes, it is another example of Amateur Hour in the GM's office to announce we're cutting someone if we can't get someone to offer us anything in trade. Even if it's the worst-kept secret, who freaking announces it so other GMs will stay away because trading something - anything  - will result in double the backlash if the player doesn't pan out.

Hardly announcing that he would be cut and then trying to trade him.  No amateur hour he was contacted by the Ravens who were possibly interested in trading for him.  

Teams do this all the time. Our fanbase is confused as to why a GM who finds out another team is going to move a player off the roster would want to trade for that player instead of letting him become a FA available to the whole league.  Announcing to the league that hes going to be cut or moved can create interest, quickly.  But of course to those who hate the GM its amateur hour.

[Sperm Edwards]

5 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Hardly announcing that he would be cut and then trying to trade him.  No amateur hour he was contacted by the Ravens who were possibly interested in trading for him.  

Teams do this all the time. Our fanbase is confused as to why a GM who finds out another team is going to move a player off the roster would want to trade for that player instead of letting him become a FA available to the whole league.  Announcing to the league that hes going to be cut or moved can create interest, quickly.  But of course to those who hate the GM its amateur hour.

Lol

Maccagnan: (nearly word for word) "If we can't trade him, we'll cut him."

You: "This doesn't mean Maccagnan was trying to trade him, nor that he would be cut if he couldn't trade him!!!"

Wow. Just wow.

[Jet Nut]

5 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Lol

Maccagnan: (nearly word for word) "If we can't trade him, we'll cut him."

You: "This doesn't mean Maccagnan was trying to trade him, nor that he would be cut if he couldn't trade him!!!"

Wow. Just wow.

You just don't understand, you're just filled with hatred, it's ok.  

[jason423]

1 hour ago, Jet Nut said:

Hardly announcing that he would be cut and then trying to trade him.  No amateur hour he was contacted by the Ravens who were possibly interested in trading for him.  

Teams do this all the time. Our fanbase is confused as to why a GM who finds out another team is going to move a player off the roster would want to trade for that player instead of letting him become a FA available to the whole league.  Announcing to the league that hes going to be cut or moved can create interest, quickly.  But of course to those who hate the GM its amateur hour.

In this era and Id definitely say in this situation Mac doing what he did was simply getting ahead of the situation before the media reported the story. Generally the way these things go down is that the team approaches the player about a pay cut, the player doesnt accept it and the agent floats a story about how the player needs out of a bad situation. My guess is the Jets tried to get ahead of the story by saying cut or trade. They had to know no team in the league was taking Decker at that salary. So Id agree it wasnt amateur hour but for those that believe in the GM it did not paint a glowing picture ither since he brought up a scenario that would never ever happen. 

[RutgersJetFan]

18 minutes ago, jason423 said:

In this era and Id definitely say in this situation Mac doing what he did was simply getting ahead of the situation before the media reported the story. Generally the way these things go down is that the team approaches the player about a pay cut, the player doesnt accept it and the agent floats a story about how the player needs out of a bad situation. My guess is the Jets tried to get ahead of the story by saying cut or trade. They had to know no team in the league was taking Decker at that salary. So Id agree it wasnt amateur hour but for those that believe in the GM it did not paint a glowing picture ither since he brought up a scenario that would never ever happen. 

Except he didn't say cut. He said "move on." That could mean anything man. Maybe they meant the team would actually physically move, and Eric would stay in Jersey. Maybe he meant it emotionally, like the team would listen to Taylor Swift songs while they reminisced how things used to be when they were younger and in love. We'll never know.

[thadude]

18 hours ago, Mogglez said:

Oh yeah, totally.  That's why the offense is just as bad as the day he took over (worse than when he took over in terms of talent actually.  Cam's growth has hidden a lot of their deficiencies), and their defense has been. Just grrrrrreeeeeaaaaaattttt.  He killed it!

I have zero clue what you're talking about regarding Newton seeing as I never bashed him you dunce.  My point was that Gettleman had the luxury of working with a bona fide franchise QB from the day he walked in and our GM, along with plenty others, haven't and he STILL managed to f*ck up extraordinarily worse than the majority of the guys that don't have that search on their to-do lists. 

Nitpicking Luck and Rivers is just the type of stupidity I've come to expect from your wonderfully constructed posts though, so at least you have that as a consistent thing for yourself.

Tell me the good players Mac hit on in his first 2 drafts not named Leo

[thadude]

8 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Lol

Maccagnan: (nearly word for word) "If we can't trade him, we'll cut him."

You: "This doesn't mean Maccagnan was trying to trade him, nor that he would be cut if he couldn't trade him!!!"

Wow. Just wow.

The excuses being made for Macagnan here are un-believable 

[thadude]

7 hours ago, RutgersJetFan said:

Except he didn't say cut. He said "move on." That could mean anything man.

Hahahahahahagaha 

[dbatesman]

9 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Hardly announcing that he would be cut and then trying to trade him.  

lmfao

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, dbatesman said:

lmfao

Some actual understand what happened.

Others laugh.  

[#27TheDominator]

13 hours ago, Mogglez said:

Again, there's nothing to explain.  Especially when we fundamentally disagree with the control aspect.  Yes I was talking about a consecutive tag.  The point of that is to give the team a certain level of control for a high end player and Gettleman f*cked up big time.  The fact that he suddenly decided that the market value for high end cornerbacks was too steep for him to pay via the tag AFTER he had already decided to tag Norman made him look absolutely stupid.  The decision to let him walk with all the control/leverage they had was the cherry on top of the sh*t sundae Gettleman made.  With two more seasons of being tagged looming, Norman had no options other than sign the tag and hope for a LTD a trade.   That or, you know, holdout and really f' himself over.  The ball was in Carolinas court and their "DAMN GOOD GM" chucked it out of bounds.  

You can disagree with the 14 mil per year argument, but that's unfortunately the going rate for CBs of that caliber.  If the team didn't want to give him a hefty long term contract with those figures in play, they should have traded him right after tagging him.  There is zero chance that they wouldn't have gotten better than a lousy comp pick.  Gettleman played this like an idiot, and now he's reaping in the consequences.  

I gotta say, it's pretty mind blowing that the only place I can find people defending the Norman situation is a New York Jets message board.  Panthers fans have no excuses for it and are still miffed about how it all went down, but Jets fans are already chock full of excuses for the guy.

"Consecutive tagging?"  Who does that?  You would be giving him a 20% raise.  Norman was tagged to keep him under control while they negotiated a long-term deal and the rescinded the tag when they realized they weren't going to reach one. I agree that it isn't the best look, but teams have done it before  The Eagles did it a bunch of times. Usually it is just used as a threat.

If you are talking about consecutive tags, why say they had control over him for 2 years?  They can tag him a third year for a 44% bump.  Hell they can keep doing it every year.  

[#27TheDominator]

14 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

So to clarify, he had control but decided it would cost too much so he relinquished control and that translates to he didnt have control?

lol

Do you comprehend the franchise tag?  With this logic, every team has control, every year.  Do teams use the tag every year?  

[Jet Nut]

31 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Do you comprehend the franchise tag?  With this logic, every team has control, every year.  Do teams use the tag every year?  

No.  Because they choose not to and would rather relinquish control.

Far different from saying they could keep control.

Not getting why anyone would argue this point.

[#27TheDominator]

27 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

No.  Because they choose not to and would rather relinquish control.

Far different from saying they could keep control.

Not getting why anyone would argue this point.

I am arguing it because it makes no sense.  The quote I questioned said he let Norman walk "despite having control over him for 2 years."  So you tell me what the hell it means. The Jets don't have control over Richardson next year, but in April 2016, the Panthers had control over Norman for 2017?  Please, explain and expound.

I am not a big Gettleman fan, but this was a pretty standard deal handled poorly from a PR standpoint.  It only related to 2016. 

[Jet Nut]

1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

I am arguing it because it makes no sense.  The quote I questioned said he let Norman walk "despite having control over him for 2 years."  So you tell me what the hell it means. The Jets don't have control over Richardson next year, but in April 2016, the Panthers had control over Norman for 2017?  Please, explain and expound.

I am not a big Gettleman fan, but this was a pretty standard deal handled poorly from a PR standpoint.  It only related to 2016. 

OK, it makes no sense that they had an option to keep the player under control but let him walk.  Again, why do you even start these arguments.  They could have franchised Norman.  More than once.  See Cousins, the Skins were ok paying the kings ransom and did.  Gettleman decided not to.  Got that

[#27TheDominator]

9 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

OK, it makes no sense that they had an option to keep the player under control but let him walk.  Again, why do you even start these arguments.  They could have franchised Norman.  More than once.  See Cousins, the Skins were ok paying the kings ransom and did.  Gettleman decided not to.  Got that

Okay, so every time that a good player changes teams it makes no sense?  Got that.  

[Sperm Edwards]

11 hours ago, jason423 said:

In this era and Id definitely say in this situation Mac doing what he did was simply getting ahead of the situation before the media reported the story. Generally the way these things go down is that the team approaches the player about a pay cut, the player doesnt accept it and the agent floats a story about how the player needs out of a bad situation. My guess is the Jets tried to get ahead of the story by saying cut or trade. They had to know no team in the league was taking Decker at that salary. So Id agree it wasnt amateur hour but for those that believe in the GM it did not paint a glowing picture ither since he brought up a scenario that would never ever happen. 

I think a team could shop a player around without announcing to the media that we're going to cut him if we don't find a trade partner. Look at the way teams shopped their unwanted WRs onto the Jets, like Santonio Holmes and Brandon Marshall. I don't recall a trade ever happening where a GM first made that announcement.

The problem for other teams is, if the player doesn't work out, the fans (and local media) will mock the GM for surrendering a pick for a player he could have had for free. He could have just as easily announced, after cutting Decker, that they tried trading him for weeks and nobody would surrender any draft pick in any round at his salary.

In the end I don't know what his market would have been (if cut) earlier on. Maybe no more, due to not being fully recovered yet, but a player's monetary value isn't generally highest in June. It's why the perception was that the team screwed over Harris, because in June the rosters are already more or less set (over-set, actually, in need of trimming down) after March FA and the draft are long over.

In the end it's not even known he went to the highest bidder, and perhaps just took the 1 yr show-me offer for a team with a good, young QB that should end up passing a lot thanks to their own lousy pass defense. And on top of that, a team that has its training camp, practices, and home games 10 minutes from his house (the Deckers live in Nashville the rest of the year as it is). 

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, #27TheDominator said:

Okay, so every time that a good player changes teams it makes no sense?  Got that.  

What does this have to do with the discussion?  Where did I ever say the move made no sense?  Can you read?  I clearly said they decided not to franchise Norman and relinquished control.  Stay on point and keep arguing in circles

[slats]

43 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I think a team could shop a player around without announcing to the media that we're going to cut him if we don't find a trade partner. Look at the way teams shopped their unwanted WRs onto the Jets, like Santonio Holmes and Brandon Marshall. I don't recall a trade ever happening where a GM first made that announcement.

The problem for other teams is, if the player doesn't work out, the fans (and local media) will mock the GM for surrendering a pick for a player he could have had for free. He could have just as easily announced, after cutting Decker, that they tried trading him for weeks and nobody would surrender any draft pick in any round at his salary.

In the end I don't know what his market would have been (if cut) earlier on. Maybe no more, due to not being fully recovered yet, but a player's monetary value isn't generally highest in June. It's why the perception was that the team screwed over Harris, because in June the rosters are already more or less set (over-set, actually, in need of trimming down) after March FA and the draft are long over.

In the end it's not even known he went to the highest bidder, and perhaps just took the 1 yr show-me offer for a team with a good, young QB that should end up passing a lot thanks to their own lousy pass defense. And on top of that, a team that has its training camp, practices, and home games 10 minutes from his house (the Deckers live in Nashville the rest of the year as it is). 

This one gets thrown around a lot, but I really don't have a problem with it. By the time he told the media that if he couldn't trade Decker, he'd move on from him, I really have to believe that he'd done a lot of shopping around and found no takers. At that point, he basically made an announcement to the rest of the league that Decker could be had for swapping seventh rounders and no one bit. 

[#27TheDominator]

1 hour ago, Jet Nut said:

OK, it makes no sense that they had an option to keep the player under control but let him walk.  Again, why do you even start these arguments.  They could have franchised Norman.  More than once.  See Cousins, the Skins were ok paying the kings ransom and did.  Gettleman decided not to.  Got that

 

7 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

What does this have to do with the discussion?  Where did I ever say the move made no sense?  Can you read?  I clearly said they decided not to franchise Norman and relinquished control.  Stay on point and keep arguing in circles

Can I read?  Yes.  Yes, I think I can. 

[Jet Nut]

37 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

 

Can I read?  Yes.  Yes, I think I can. 

Ugh, younsaid it made no sense, I was mocking your point.  It was an OK, sure, etc.  My point has absolutely nothing to do with whether the move made sense or not, was whether they had a choice or not to move him.  I've said repeatedly that they could have kept him if they wanted to.  But they chose not to

slow day, just feel like arguing? 

[#27TheDominator]

 

2 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

 

1 hour ago, Jet Nut said:

Ugh, younsaid it made no sense, I was mocking your point.  It was an OK, sure, etc.  My point has absolutely nothing to do with whether the move made sense or not, was whether they had a choice or not to move him.  I've said repeatedly that they could have kept him if they wanted to.  But they chose not to

slow day, just feel like arguing? 

Take a logic course. 

Mogglez said they had control of the player for the next 2 years because they the option to franchise him consecutively.  This ignores the fact that any team can franchise a player each year.  You can franchise the same player every year. It's costly, but allowed. In that case, why stop at 2 years?  That is where he and I disagree.  

You jumped in with a LOL, showing your lack of understanding.  Every time that a team elects to let a player hit FA and does not use the tag that year, they "relinquished control."  This is not always a bad idea.  Some players are too expensive and there are other contracts.  The Panthers had recently extended Newton and Kuechly and they tried to do Short, but weren't able to extend him until this April.

You said this:

  

Quote

No.  Because they choose not to and would rather relinquish control.

Far different from saying they could keep control.

That statement makes little sense to those of us that understand the language, but please try to explain it.  One team chooses not to and relinquishes control, the other could keep control (but they choose not to?).  How is this far different?  For the record, in the example above Team A tagged the player and rescinded, Team B elected not to tag.  You saw this elusive difference, which contradicts your agreement with Mogglez who was specifically talking about consecutive tagging.  The Panthers obviously had not yet tagged Norman for 2017, so in your mind that was "far different."

You then said: 

Quote

OK, it makes no sense that they had an option to keep the player under control but let him walk

And I replied, asking if every time a player hit free agency if it made no sense that the team did not keep him.  I, and every other sane person, thinks there are times, such as guys getting deals like Suh did, or what Cousins will be due on the 3rd tag for 2018, when letting the player walk, despite having control makes sense.  So I asked you a very simple question: .

Quote

Okay, so every time that a good player changes teams it makes no sense?  

Since your argument is, with the ability to tag a player the team has control, then any time a good player changes teams, a team let him go when they had control.  

Your response: 

Quote

Where did I ever say the move made no sense?  Can you read?

That is exactly what you said, but your response is that you were mocking me.  If you were mocking me by saying 

Quote

OK, it makes no sense that they had an option to keep the player under control but let him walk

Since you were "mocking" can we assume that you think it does make sense?  This would be in agreement with me (the proposed mockee) and against what you had said earlier and what Mogglez was saying when you jumped to his rescue.  

I am arguing with you because you make no sense.  At this point, you have directly contradicted almost every point you have tried to make, but insult my intelligence and complain that I am argumentative.  Why don't you tell us  your actual position?  Mine was that having the option to tag a player does not equate to control and that rescinding the tag may be bad optically, but is not always an unreasonable decision.  

I don't appreciate ignorance

[#27TheDominator]

The post above dedicated to @Bleedin Green and @Sperm Edwards and any others who have ridiculously long posts that nobody will ever read.

[Jet Nut]

17 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

 

Take a logic course. 

Mogglez said they had control of the player for the next 2 years because they the option to franchise him consecutively.  This ignores the fact that any team can franchise a player each year.  You can franchise the same player every year. It's costly, but allowed. In that case, why stop at 2 years?  That is where he and I disagree.  

You jumped in with a LOL, showing your lack of understanding.  Every time that a team elects to let a player hit FA and does not use the tag that year, they "relinquished control."  This is not always a bad idea.  Some players are too expensive and there are other contracts.  Within a few months of rescinding Norman's tag, the Panthers extended Newton and Kuechly.  They tried to do Short, but weren't able to extend him until this April.

You said this:

  

That statement makes little sense to those of us that understand the language, but please try to explain it.  One team chooses not to and relinquishes control, the other could keep control (but they choose not to?).  How is this far different?  For the record, in the example above Team A tagged the player and rescinded, Team B elected not to tag.  You saw this elusive difference, which contradicts your agreement with Mogglez who was specifically talking about consecutive tagging.  The Panthers obviously had not yet tagged Norman for 2017, so in your mind that was "far different."

You then said: 

And I replied, asking if every time a player hit free agency if it made no sense that the team did not keep him.  I, and every other sane person, thinks there are times, such as guys getting deals like Suh did, or what Cousins will be due on the 3rd tag for 2018, when letting the player walk, despite having control makes sense.  So I asked you a very simple question: .

Since your argument is, with the ability to tag a player the team has control, then any time a good player changes teams, a team let him go when they had control.  

Your response: 

That is exactly what you said, but your response is that you were mocking me.  If you were mocking me by saying 

Since you were "mocking" can we assume that you think it does make sense?  This would be in agreement with me (the proposed mockee) and against what you had said earlier and what Mogglez was saying when you jumped to his rescue.  

I am arguing with you because you make no sense.  At this point, you have directly contradicted almost every point you have tried to make, but insult my intelligence and complain that I am argumentative.  Why don't you tell us  your actual position?  Mine was that having the option to tag a player does not equate to control and that rescinding the tag may be bad optically, but is not always an unreasonable decision.  

I don't appreciate ignorance

Holy shlt you just cant help yourself.

This ridiculous argument is a full time job for you.  Here, I'll agree with you.  Norman could have been franchised two years running and they could have had control over him.  They chose not to, therefore, LOGICALLY, they didnt have control over him.  Especially since as you told @Mogglez every team can do the same with their players.  I got you.  Youre smart, we're not.  This isnt control I guess, its a rule.  

Move on already, youre not making points and its getting boring for all

[Mogglez]

4 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

"Consecutive tagging?"  Who does that?  You would be giving him a 20% raise.  Norman was tagged to keep him under control while they negotiated a long-term deal and the rescinded the tag when they realized they weren't going to reach one. I agree that it isn't the best look, but teams have done it before  The Eagles did it a bunch of times. Usually it is just used as a threat.

If you are talking about consecutive tags, why say they had control over him for 2 years?  They can tag him a third year for a 44% bump.  Hell they can keep doing it every year.  

The Redskins, this year, on Kirk Cousins.  They're currently being ripped as the most incompetent front office in sports because they haven't struck a long-term deal with him or traded him and they are gonna end up losing him for basically nothing if he walks in FA.  They've had all this control and still managed to bungle the whole thing.  Sounds pretty familiar.

Consecutive tags aren't uncommon. It's just usually never gets to that point because the front office isn't stupid enough to not figure out what to do with the player.  Even if they didn't want to do that, they could have (and should have) kept Norman under the tag, tried to trade him all throughout the spring/summer up to the deadline, and worst case scenario, kept an all pro corner on their team for one more season to try and get back to the Super Bowl.  They were always gonna get a comp pick if he walked, why settle for that when there was so much more to gain though?  Look at what an injured Revis netted us in a trade.  Even Idzik, of all guys, was smart enough to get something decent back for a guy he didn't want to pay big bucks to.

[#27TheDominator]

2 minutes ago, Mogglez said:

The Redskins, this year, on Kirk Cousins.  They're currently being ripped as the most incompetent front office in sports because they haven't struck a long-term deal with him or traded him and they are gonna end up losing him for basically nothing if he walks in FA.  They've had all this control and still managed to bungle the whole thing.  Sounds pretty familiar.

Consecutive tags aren't uncommon. It's just usually never gets to that point because the front office isn't stupid enough to not figure out what to do with the player.  Even if they didn't want to do that, they could have (and should have) kept Norman under the tag, tried to trade him all throughout the spring/summer up to the deadline, and worst case scenario, kept an all pro corner on their team for one more season to try and get back to the Super Bowl.  They were always gonna get a comp pick if he walked, why settle for that when there was so much more to gain though?  Look at what an injured Revis netted us in a trade.  Even Idzik, of all guys, was smart enough to get something decent back for a guy he didn't want to pay big bucks to.

I don't necessarily agree with you, but you answered my question - that you meant with the consecutive tag.  You can tag a player more than 2 years, but the raise is 44% instead of 20%, which can be prohibitive.  I was not saying it was right or wrong, just didn't understand the 2 years control comment.  I consider that for guys like Enunwa who are under contract.

 

13 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Holy shlt you just cant help yourself.

This ridiculous argument is a full time job for you.  Here, I'll agree with you.  Norman could have been franchised two years running and they could have had control over him.  They chose not to, therefore, LOGICALLY, they didnt have control over him.  Especially since as you told @Mogglez every team can do the same with their players.  I got you.  Youre smart, we're not.  This isnt control I guess, its a rule.  

Move on already, youre not making points and its getting boring for all

I don't know why you are saying "we're not".  You already contradicted @Mogglez.  I don't have a problem with what he says.  We don't necessarily agree, but there is a logical basis for what he is saying.  What you are spewing?  Not so much. Go back to saying that "move on from" doesn't mean cut.  It makes about the same amount of sense. 

[Mogglez]

7 hours ago, thadude said:

Tell me the good players Mac hit on in his first 2 drafts not named Leo

"I can't really refute anything you just said about the guy I'm ball-washing so I'm gonna deflect and ask a stupid question.  Oh and you're not allowed to bring up the all-pro Defensive player he drafted his first year because it really hurts my stupid argument.  Oh, you also can't include this year's draft where he drafted another likely all-pro Defensive player because, well, that's just not fair."

How about you stop making this thread all about Macc and focus on my initial point which is that, even of you think Macc sucks, Gettleman is just as bad, probably worse, deserved to be fired, and you should probably stop fawning over the guy.  Once again, John Dorsey?  Fine.  I'd consider that.  Gettleman is hot trash.

[Jet Nut]

2 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

I don't necessarily agree with you, but you answered my question - that you meant with the consecutive tag.  You can tag a player more than 2 years, but the raise is 44% instead of 20%, which can be prohibitive.  I was not saying it was right or wrong, just didn't understand the 2 years control comment.  I consider that for guys like Enunwa who are under contract.

 

I don't know why you are saying "we're not".  You already contradicted @Mogglez.  I don't have a problem with what he says.  We don't necessarily agree, but there is a logical basis for what he is saying.  What you are spewing?  Not so much. Go back to saying that "move on from" doesn't mean cut.  It makes about the same amount of sense. 

Move on child.  You're spinning in circles.  They could have controlled him for two seasons if they wanted to.  That was @Mogglez point and I agree.  You have any number of reasons why you dont.  And now agree.  Make up your mind.

[thadude]

56 minutes ago, Mogglez said:

"I can't really refute anything you just said about the guy I'm ball-washing so I'm gonna deflect and ask a stupid question.  Oh and you're not allowed to bring up the all-pro Defensive player he drafted his first year because it really hurts my stupid argument.  Oh, you also can't include this year's draft where he drafted another likely all-pro Defensive player because, well, that's just not fair."

How about you stop making this thread all about Macc and focus on my initial point which is that, even of you think Macc sucks, Gettleman is just as bad, probably worse, deserved to be fired, and you should probably stop fawning over the guy.  Once again, John Dorsey?  Fine.  I'd consider that.  Gettleman is hot trash.

Ultimately all threads about fired GM's are about Mac because Mac will be fired in 5 months and we will need a new GM

[tuffhand]

and Gettleman can bring his personnel guy.

https://sports.yahoo.com/m/5ebf7532-98ff-3ee6-aa2a-75eaf6c73909/panthers-gm-marty-hurney.html