How the Panthers contributed to Brian Burns's contract dispute

Carolina defensive end Brian Burns's contract dispute is a problem the Panthers created.

Last season, the Rams tried to trade for Burns, one of the top young edge rushers in the NFL with 38 career sacks (including a career-high 12.5 last season), and reports suggested Los Angeles was willing to give up a large sum to get him.

The Rams offered two firsts and a second, which the Panthers, of course, rejected.

Carolina revealed how much it values Burns, who plays at arguably the most important defensive position in today's NFL, by not agreeing to that massive haul.

Those picks (likely the Rams' 2024 and 2025 firsts) could be valuable and add another layer to the Panthers' decision to stick with Burns, particularly if he holds out for long.

Carolina refused to trade him because he's young enough to be a key piece for years to come, but he isn't doing the franchise any good as a holdout. If he isn't playing, it would be much better for the Panthers to have those picks.

Carolina also owes its 2024 first to Chicago due to its trade up to No. 1 overall this year, meaning it can't afford a finish any worse than last year's 7-10 mark.

Burns wasn't at the past two practices as he seeks a long-term contract. Per Spotrac, he's set to make $16 million this year after Carolina exercised the fifth-year option on his rookie deal.

Steelers outside linebacker T.J. Watt's contract has the highest average annual value among edge rushers at $28 million. 

Carolina would be wise to get a deal done with Burns quickly. Not only is he vital to its defense, but the Panthers also need to beat San Francisco to the punch in its negotiations with Nick Bosa or risk the market resetting. Like Burns, Bosa is set to play on his fifth-year option but is holding out for a long-term deal.

The Panthers could have avoided all of this by agreeing to trade Burns last season. To be fair, though, that would have set the team back at a crucial roster spot, so they certainly can't be faulted for denying the Rams' advances. 

It is a bit strange now to look back on Carolina valuing Burns so much that they took a hard stance in trade negotiations, while just months later refusing to sign him to a long-term contract.