Bears release 30-year-old OG Matt Slauson

[oasis]

All I'm saying is Kearse feels more like a luxury pick compared to core re-signings -- and luxury picks affect the small amount of cap space we have. Face it, fellas. If we don't sign Slauson, we can all comfortably blame our beloved homegrown WR

For starters, you're assuming we're interested in him. If we don't sign him, it can be as simple as we didn't want him.

To me, this is a straw man argument.

Will every available player we don't sign be because we signed Kearse to a very reasonable deal?

Assume for a moment that Slausen can be had for 1 year on his expected cap number with the bears in 2015 (approx 3.4 Million).

The Seahawks currently have 3.4 million in dead money. Instead of placing the blame on Kearse, you could blame the signings of Cary Williams, Terry Poole, Kevin Norwood, Christine Michael, Clint Gresham, Obum Gwatchum, Eric Pinkins, Ryan Murphy, Triston Wade, Keenan Lambert, Quayshawn Nealy, Jesse Davis, Ronald Martin, Rod Smith, Alex Singleton and Nate Boyer. These signings don't affect our ability to sign Slausen?

It won't be because of 3.4 million between recently re-signed players like Jeremy Lane? Rubin? Wilson? Avril? Wagner?

It's ONLY because of Kearse?

All signings affect the cap.

The non-core players you listed were signed for peanuts. Kearse had a three-year 13.5 million dollar contract. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Again. I'm asking you to assume that Slausen can be had for 3.4 million dollars on a 1 year deal (His cap number for 2016 had he stayed on the bears).

While individually those players are signed for "peanuts", collectively they take up the exact amount of cap space needed to sign Slausen in my hypothetical. Yet, if i'm reading you correctly, Kearse is THE reason that we are prevented from signing him.

How is it not equally the fault of the dead money? Why are you cherry-picking Kearse?

You need 53 players on your roster, and paying league-minimums for non-core guys allows us to pay more for players we want more. Kearse is an exception to this case. And the difference between Kearse contract and league-minimum contract could help pay for Slauson, hypothetically.

 

[sutz]

Obviously, they wanted to keep Kearse around. If they want Slauson, they'll bring him in, try him out, and figure out a way to pay him.

:229031_shrug:

 

[oasis]

Obviously, they wanted to keep Kearse around. If they want Slauson, they'll bring him in, try him out, and figure out a way to pay him.

:229031_shrug:

Of course they want Slauson you podgy jackrabbit jiggery-poker.

 

[Blitzer88]

Obviously, they wanted to keep Kearse around. If they want Slauson, they'll bring him in, try him out, and figure out a way to pay him.

:229031_shrug:

Of course they want Slauson you podgy jackrabbit jiggery-poker.

How do you know they Slauson?

 

[oasis]

Obviously, they wanted to keep Kearse around. If they want Slauson, they'll bring him in, try him out, and figure out a way to pay him.

:229031_shrug:

Of course they want Slauson you podgy jackrabbit jiggery-poker.

How do you know they Slauson?

Do you mean reasons unrelated to his dreamy blue eyes?

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Kearse's 2015 cap hit is $2,633,333. Over the last 3 seasons he's probably been a $3-4 m player for us factoring in 2015's market inflation.

I get it Kearse is not a sexy player but in theory every similar sized or bigger WR the Seahawks have brought on over the years have yet to unseat his role. Chris Harper. Kevin Norwood. Phil Bates. Stephen Williams. Chris Mathews. None of these guys are world beaters but thier are more names probably to put on the lust. With that saidyoud think one of them would unseat such a limited WR such a Kearse.

Or Kearse just might be good. How many WRs can you find that have 4 years of chemistry with Russell Wilson and a knack for producing in high leverage situations. Also, despite popular belief, hes been making fewer and fewer mistakes each year. And does a lot of the dirty work that you dont see on the stat chart.

 

[sc85sis]

Kearse is a core player or the Hawks wouldn't have bothered to re-sign him. He's not as key as Doug, but clearly the staff value him or they'd have let him walk and would have signed one or two cheaper WRs to compete for his spot.

 

[Seafan]

The Hawks intend to take Lynch's entire cap hit this year. There won't be any more $4mil+ type contract additions this season.

It is what it is and this decision gives them more freedom in 2017.

 

[naholmes]

Slauson might be worth a look on a cheap contract. However, he cannot be as good as PFF and the fans think otherwise the Bears wouldn't have cut him.

 

[Basis4day]

Slauson might be worth a look on a cheap contract. However, he cannot be as good as PFF and the fans think otherwise the Bears wouldn't have cut him.

Fans see headline "Good OL Released" and automatically think hes an upgrade and perfect fit and a FO target.

It doesn't work that way.

 

[Largent80]

LOL the glue of the OL. Old horses get turned into glue. So hello Elmers.