"Holdout" news of Earl Thomas

[Popeyejones]

"Me and my family come first" <> "I have to protect my family" IMO. The former is easily interpreted as a desire to maximize income for his family and is disconnected from any notion that his family is in jeopardy. The latter is quite firmly suggestive that there is some jeopardy to his family if his pile of gold isn't as large as it could be.

The implicit jeopardy is what people react to negatively. Both the "feed" formulation and the "protect" formulation center on jeopardy.

I think you framed the "protect" statement in a way more friendly to your argument, but IMO the court should uphold a ruling of semantics here

:lol: :lol:

:2thumbs: :2thumbs: :2thumbs: :2thumbs: :2thumbs:

Just as a point of clarification, he never said "protect my family". His exact quote which is being misquoted was:

"I just gotta protect myself. At the end of the day, me and my family, that's the first thing."

And you're right that I really don't read "protect" in that sentence as implying the "imminent danger" usage of the word. He's not saying he's in imminent danger.

Rather, he's talking about a contract, and "protect" is being used in the contractual sense of the word (i.e. a contract "protecting" both parties).

The takeaway from that sentence, which MAKES A LOT OF SENSE in my opinion (whereas the imminent danger interpretation doesn't make any sense) is he's saying that he wants a contract with long-term guarantees and one that pays him at a fair market value (i.e. he wants the protection of an extension, and doesn't want to do a team discount).

The "end of the day, me and my family, that's the first thing" addendum to thought was simply clarifying that he's not interested in doing management favors or taking a team friendly deal -- i.e. me and my family are the negotiating party where my interests lie.

People can of course like that or not or find it in poor taste for him to come and say that or not, but turning it into "I need 15 million a year instead of 10 million a year because my kid's are starving at 10 million" just lacks a factual basis in reality, IMO.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

In one corner we have those with rose colored glasses incapable of acknowledging that it is actually possible for the defense to return to dominance without Earl; in the other corner we have those with foggy glasses who contend that Earl is no longer a great player (it's possible that some may have allowed their anger over his actions off the field to impact their assessment of his performance on the field).

It's not this black and white for me.

It's about the money, it's ALWAYS about the money. I don't think anyone doesn't think Earl is still not a great player, the question is he worth 15+M a year, and a 4-5 year extension.

Most importantly if we're going to try to rebuild this defense to greatness, which may take a year or two, do we want to spend that kind of cap space on Earl, when his play is more than likely going to continue to diminish and he's going to continue to get hurt?

For me the answer is no. If we're going to rebuild the defense, we need the picks Earl could get us, especially if it's another 1st rounder.

This is all hard for me to say btw. I love Earl, he and Kam are my favorite Hawks. But I don't want us to have another 2-3 seasons being in this limbo of having half the roster as over the hill vets soaking up 75% of our cap space on and off the disabled list, and the other half fill ins and hopeful 1st and 2nd year players.

Do it right, if you're gonna rebuild, then rebuild.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Where is this Jaylon Smith thing coming from?

Me. I read about his foot getting better and said he's "feeling elite again" after his strong finish to the season, so threw out a Jaylon for Earl to see what people thought.

Pretending it's real, where would Jaylon Smith play?

After the Hawks trade ET3 for Jaylon Smith are they gonna get rid of KJ Wright or Bobby Wagner, because Smith definitely doesn't play SAM.

Do you guys even Seahawk?

Jaylon is said to be best suited for WILL but as Sun Tzu said can play SAM and provide much needed LB depth and be the eventual replacement for KJ.

Of course he’s going to say that. The guy had problems changing directions last year.
To trade the best FS for a guy still recovering from “drop foot” is beyond silly. Maybe we should give them Russ for Sean “one concussion away from retirement” Lee as well? We’d really be set at linebacker then. :sarcasm_off:

 

[massari]

Where is this Jaylon Smith thing coming from?

Me. I read about his foot getting better and said he's "feeling elite again" after his strong finish to the season, so threw out a Jaylon for Earl to see what people thought.

Pretending it's real, where would Jaylon Smith play?

After the Hawks trade ET3 for Jaylon Smith are they gonna get rid of KJ Wright or Bobby Wagner, because Smith definitely doesn't play SAM.

Do you guys even Seahawk?

Jaylon is said to be best suited for WILL but as Sun Tzu said can play SAM and provide much needed LB depth and be the eventual replacement for KJ.

Of course he’s going to say that. The guy had problems changing directions last year.
To trade the best FS for a guy still recovering from “drop foot” is beyond silly. Maybe we should give them Russ for Sean “one concussion away from retirement” Lee as well? We’d really be set at linebacker then. :sarcasm_off:

BTW I'm fairly sure I wouldn't trade ET for Smith, was just seeing what people thought of him. That's all.

Also, they're not getting Martin+high picks for him and it's doubtful the Cowboys trade Martin straight up for ET.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Where is this Jaylon Smith thing coming from?

Me. I read about his foot getting better and said he's "feeling elite again" after his strong finish to the season, so threw out a Jaylon for Earl to see what people thought.

Pretending it's real, where would Jaylon Smith play?

After the Hawks trade ET3 for Jaylon Smith are they gonna get rid of KJ Wright or Bobby Wagner, because Smith definitely doesn't play SAM.

Do you guys even Seahawk?

Jaylon is said to be best suited for WILL but as Sun Tzu said can play SAM and provide much needed LB depth and be the eventual replacement for KJ.

Of course he’s going to say that. The guy had problems changing directions last year.
To trade the best FS for a guy still recovering from “drop foot” is beyond silly. Maybe we should give them Russ for Sean “one concussion away from retirement” Lee as well? We’d really be set at linebacker then. :sarcasm_off:

BTW I'm fairly sure I wouldn't trade ET for Smith, was just seeing what people thought of him. That's all.

Also, they're not getting Martin+high picks for him and it's doubtful the Cowboys trade Martin straight up for ET.

Then no deal. When you have a proven commodity that is the best in the game at his position and are considering trading him you get YOUR PRICE, regardless if the otherside thinks it’s fair, and regardless if it’s going to hurt the otherside. If *allas wants him bad they’d have no problem trading Martin + high pick(s). If they don’t, you lock him up and let Earl go play in *allas when he’s 36 or 37.

Deal from a position of strength not weakness.

 

[themunn]

Earl is not "in his prime."

He's pushing up on 30. For an NFL safety that's firmly middle-aged. Add to that he has some hard miles/hits on that frame of his and he's likely looking at a few more seasons at best if he can avoid serious injury - compounded by diminished ability.

They all know this. If an NFL player moves past 30 still able to produce at a high level that's a truly special breed of athlete for that sport. He's going to try and get some $$$ on a 3-year deal for a team that gives him a credible shot at a SB.

He doesn't feel that is the Seahawks.

Sadly, he's probably right.

Eric Weddle at 33 is still one of the best safeties in the league and has been named to the pro bowl in 3 of last 4 seasons.

Ed Reed was probably also about 33/34 before he started to decline.

There is no reason to trade Thomas 6 years before then on the assumption that he "might" decline.

 

[original poster]

But what happens if the FO decides they don't want or require Earl's services anymore and he holds out until week 7 (I think it's week 7).

If they don't want to resign him, and you know he will hold out for nearly half the season, as much as it would suck I'd be on board with accepting whatever the best offer is for him. Even if, on the face of it, it looks like daylight robbery.

 

[Sports Hernia]

But what happens if the FO decides they don't want or require Earl's services anymore and he holds out until week 7 (I think it's week 7).

If they don't want to resign him, and you know he will hold out for nearly half the season, as much as it would suck I'd be on board with accepting whatever the best offer is for him. Even if, on the face of it, it looks like daylight robbery.

That’s a risk I’m willing to take. Earl is a fierce competitor, it will kill him to not be out there. You can also threaten to franchise him for 2 years if he threatens to hold out. I think a long term deal can be reached and lower than the 15 mil a year number that has been thrown around here.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

But what happens if the FO decides they don't want or require Earl's services anymore and he holds out until week 7 (I think it's week 7).

If they don't want to resign him, and you know he will hold out for nearly half the season, as much as it would suck I'd be on board with accepting whatever the best offer is for him. Even if, on the face of it, it looks like daylight robbery.

That’s a risk I’m willing to take. Earl is a fierce competitor, it will kill him to not be out there. You can also threaten to franchise him for 2 years if he threatens to hold out. I think a long term deal can be reached and lower than the 15 mil a year number that has been thrown around here.

Ok...a question from someone in the audience...you seahawkfan..."if we franchise him for the first year, can he hold out for some games? If we decide not to franchise him the second year, What do you think his worth would be at that time with one more year under his belt? thanks."

:2thumbs:

 

[original poster]

He can hold out for the first 7 weeks of the season, still accure the year but obviously not receive his game money.

When you say his worth in the second year, do you mean to him from a contract stand point or to the team from a trade stand point? Fairly sure you mean the former as he obviously would be an URFA after the first tagged year.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

He can hold out for the first 7 weeks of the season, still accure the year but obviously not receive his game money.

When you say his worth in the second year, do you mean to him from a contract stand point or to the team from a trade stand point? Fairly sure you mean the former as he obviously would be an URFA after the first tagged year.

You got it. Thank you. Had a bug last night...made my sleep a little bit rough. His reality worth would be determined by what he does in production for the tagged or hold out season. Just wondered if he would be worth a second..but that again would be determined by his actions on the field during next season.

Thanks.

 

[Sports Hernia]

But what happens if the FO decides they don't want or require Earl's services anymore and he holds out until week 7 (I think it's week 7).

If they don't want to resign him, and you know he will hold out for nearly half the season, as much as it would suck I'd be on board with accepting whatever the best offer is for him. Even if, on the face of it, it looks like daylight robbery.

That’s a risk I’m willing to take. Earl is a fierce competitor, it will kill him to not be out there. You can also threaten to franchise him for 2 years if he threatens to hold out. I think a long term deal can be reached and lower than the 15 mil a year number that has been thrown around here.

Ok...a question from someone in the audience...you seahawkfan..."if we franchise him for the first year, can he hold out for some games? If we decide not to franchise him the second year, What do you think his worth would be at that time with one more year under his belt? thanks."

:2thumbs:

I think the hold out thing is just talk. If He wants to miss 7 game checks, he’s giving away money he’ll never get back.

 

[purpleneer]

He wouldn't be in the situation around Earl that we're in. He'd admit that they way we won before isn't the only way we can win. He wouldn't pretend that it's even possible in the modern NFL to accomplish the ultimate goal more than a time or two by trying to do the same things week-to-week and year-to-year.
Individually, Earl might be a guy he would work to keep, but he wouldn't have tried to have as much of a "core" as the Hawks have tried and he would find it a lot easier to do. As it is, the injury history along with Earl's physical style and small size would probably still prevent him from committing as much as it might take.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-england- ... urty-6536/

Yeah, the Devin McCourty thing is funny in terms of Thomas. Both are making about the same amount of money. But I hear Belechick would never resign players past their rookie contracts if they are expensive unless they are Brady. Never. Especially at the same position that we're talking about in this forum.

I have been assured of this.

Really late coming back to this, but I'd have to say the example of McCourty and his contract do nothing but support what I said.

 

[Year of The Hawk]

I always find it amusing that the same people who think we should trade a player because he isn't playing his best year and get a draft pick for him think our FO sucks at the draft. Earl at 80% is still one of the best in the game. So even if he does take a step back he is still elite. I do agree we should not sign him to a long term contract but trade him just for the sake of a draft pick when who knows what we might get when we know what we have now. I would rather trade or get rid of a mediocre player and hope for an improvement. Does anyone really think we can easily replace Earl in the draft? Maybe we can leverage whatever pick we get and trade our 1st and 2nd round to trade up to get Clevelands first pick so we can gamble a replacement for a great player. Jeez.

 

[original poster]

I always find it amusing that the same people who think we should trade a player because he isn't playing his best year and get a draft pick for him think our FO sucks at the draft. Earl at 80% is still one of the best in the game. So even if he does take a step back he is still elite. I do agree we should not sign him to a long term contract but trade him just for the sake of a draft pick when who knows what we might get when we know what we have now. I would rather trade or get rid of a mediocre player and hope for an improvement. Does anyone really think we can easily replace Earl in the draft? Maybe we can leverage whatever pick we get and trade our 1st and 2nd round to trade up to get Clevelands first pick so we can gamble a replacement for a great player. Jeez.

You're missing the point entirely.

Nobody has once said that if he was traded they'd draft his replacement and get 100% of the level of play. Nobody.

For the people who are in the trade him camp, they're concerned about signing him long term given his age and injury history, they've been burnt by the Kam Chancellor situation and can see lightning striking twice, that's the problem.

I'm still undecided, personally. There's no doubt that his play right now and into next year will be superb, I'd be very surprised if he dropped off next year or maybe even the year after, or the year after. The point is it's possible and the likelihood of him getting injured again is very possible, he plays tough with little regard for his body.

Nobody thinks he is replaceable to an equal level of play, but people do think the Seattle defense needs to get younger (4th oldest last year IIRC) and not sign ageing vets to 3rd contracts keeping them around well into their 30's.

Pete Carroll is a defensive genius, provided the play at FS wouldn't be on the level Steven Terrell offered us in 2016 and was more in line with what Bradley McDougald offered us in 2017, I think we would be just fine. Just need to tweak the scheme a little.

Plus, this team really needs more balance on cap spending, they're spending over $21m more on defense vs offense, not having earls large contact could be moved to the other side to level it out massively. But that's a whole different discussion.

 

[Missing_Clink]

I always find it amusing that the same people who think we should trade a player because he isn't playing his best year and get a draft pick for him think our FO sucks at the draft. Earl at 80% is still one of the best in the game. So even if he does take a step back he is still elite. I do agree we should not sign him to a long term contract but trade him just for the sake of a draft pick when who knows what we might get when we know what we have now. I would rather trade or get rid of a mediocre player and hope for an improvement. Does anyone really think we can easily replace Earl in the draft? Maybe we can leverage whatever pick we get and trade our 1st and 2nd round to trade up to get Clevelands first pick so we can gamble a replacement for a great player. Jeez.

You're missing the point entirely.

Nobody has once said that if he was traded they'd draft his replacement and get 100% of the level of play. Nobody.

For the people who are in the trade him camp, they're concerned about signing him long term given his age and injury history, they've been burnt by the Kam Chancellor situation and can see lightning striking twice, that's the problem.

I'm still undecided, personally. There's no doubt that his play right now and into next year will be superb, I'd be very surprised if he dropped off next year or maybe even the year after, or the year after. The point is it's possible and the likelihood of him getting injured again is very possible, he plays tough with little regard for his body.

Nobody thinks he is replaceable to an equal level of play, but people do think the Seattle defense needs to get younger (4th oldest last year IIRC) and not sign ageing vets to 3rd contracts keeping them around well into their 30's.

Pete Carroll is a defensive genius, provided the play at FS wouldn't be on the level Steven Terrell offered us in 2016 and was more in line with what Bradley McDougald offered us in 2017, I think we would be just fine. Just need to tweak the scheme a little.

Plus, this team really needs more balance on cap spending, they're spending over $21m more on defense vs offense, not having earls large contact could be moved to the other side to level it out massively. But that's a whole different discussion.

Great post and summary of the situation. You described exactly what the struggle is. Everyone knows there is no true ET replacement in the short term, and the question is whether now is the time to move on for long-term salary cap health. I personally do not want to see him get a giant 3rd contract here, Id rather the defense get younger.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Pete Carroll is a defensive genius

This is where your argument falls apart for me. A huge chunk of the justification for the Legion's departure hangs its hat on this, but Carroll is not a one-man show. His drafting has been highly spotty after 2012. The secondary coach that helped create the Legion is now in Dallas. And as you said, he'll arguably have less material to work with once the Legion is gone. I do think the dropoff will be greater than you suggest.

 

[original poster]

Pete Carroll is a defensive genius

This is where your argument falls apart for me. A huge chunk of the justification for the Legion's departure hangs its hat on this, but Carroll is not a one-man show. His drafting has been highly spotty after 2012. The secondary coach that helped create the Legion is now in Dallas. And as you said, he'll arguably have less material to work with once the Legion is gone. I do think the dropoff will be greater than you suggest.

I wasn't making arguments at all, it was a summary of the situation for most.

But I firmly stand by Pete Carroll is a defensive genius and I don't know how anyone could legitimately make an argument that he isn't to be honest.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I always find it amusing that the same people who think we should trade a player because he isn't playing his best year and get a draft pick for him think our FO sucks at the draft. Earl at 80% is still one of the best in the game. So even if he does take a step back he is still elite. I do agree we should not sign him to a long term contract but trade him just for the sake of a draft pick when who knows what we might get when we know what we have now. I would rather trade or get rid of a mediocre player and hope for an improvement. Does anyone really think we can easily replace Earl in the draft? Maybe we can leverage whatever pick we get and trade our 1st and 2nd round to trade up to get Clevelands first pick so we can gamble a replacement for a great player. Jeez.

For the 180th time, it's not just about Earl, it's about what he costs and is that worth a monster 15M+ per year for the next 3-4 years hit on our cap?

So you're saying yes?

Same with Richard, and some of us are saying if we can get decent picks for either/or, then you have to take a hard look at not extending, especially if we're in a rebuild, do we want to strap ourselves with two monster extensions tying up 30M in cap space with two players who probably won't be here when the rebuild starts paying off.

 

[Year of The Hawk]

I always find it amusing that the same people who think we should trade a player because he isn't playing his best year and get a draft pick for him think our FO sucks at the draft. Earl at 80% is still one of the best in the game. So even if he does take a step back he is still elite. I do agree we should not sign him to a long term contract but trade him just for the sake of a draft pick when who knows what we might get when we know what we have now. I would rather trade or get rid of a mediocre player and hope for an improvement. Does anyone really think we can easily replace Earl in the draft? Maybe we can leverage whatever pick we get and trade our 1st and 2nd round to trade up to get Clevelands first pick so we can gamble a replacement for a great player. Jeez.

For the 180th time, it's not just about Earl, it's about what he costs and is that worth a monster 15M+ per year for the next 3-4 years hit on our cap?

So you're saying yes?

Same with Richard, and some of us are saying if we can get decent picks for either/or, then you have to take a hard look at not extending, especially if we're in a rebuild, do we want to strap ourselves with two monster extensions tying up 30M in cap space with two players who probably won't be here when the rebuild starts paying off.

Rebuild? I did not know were were the Cleveland Browns. You might look at the team as a rebuild but it does not make it so. Yes money is always a factor. It all comes down to getting worse as a team to save money. Simple. We trade Earl and Sherm we will not be as good for the next year or two in those positions. How much is that worth? I have no idea. This is why I am not a GM for a team. Tough questions with no simple answers. The tough balance between investing in youth and future and keeping great players. Does anyone think there is value in having Sherm and Earl around to teach and motivate the rooks beyond being top in the positions in league? A big factor is also how the contract are structured and for how long and what teams would be willing to give up for them. So many factors. Glad it is not my headache to deal with. I am not saying we shouldn't trade them but some are so easily ready to get rid of great players to save money and get a few risky draft picks.