Yeah, when did Akers suddenly become a crappy back? Hmmmm
For ANY player, it is NEVER about being good, or "crappy". It is about being worth the compensation. The salary cap shifts the focus away from the simplicity of a player just being good or not. The salary cap shifts focus to value. "Bang for the buck". Aquisition cost. Living up to the contract. A player can be really good and not worth his contract (or the draft capital required to obtain him) at the same time. In fact, it is quite common and explains seemingly head scratching roster cuts throughout the league. Trust me. The management was on the phone trying to deal that "good" player before the cut took place. If that good player isn't worth his contract, then there will not be any takers, and it is time for him to take a pay cut. Animosity for that pay cut often means you have to move him, but some players will stick for the lesser money.
The rule of thumb is this: Once a player is past his rookie deal, the built-in veteran salary structure (as dictated by the collective bargaining agreement) nearly ALWAYS dictates that you get better value from filling depth with rookie contracts (or veterans willing to play for league minimum). Now a player can be in his second or third year of a rookie deal, but it is STILL a rookie deal. And that is all that Akers would ever be in Seattle. Depth. Value=filling depth with rookie deals and being "good" is not the main variable in this equation.
The caveat is true contenders that are "luxury" pieces away from putting them over the top. This explains "Salary Cap Hell" which is a subject all of its own.