Lynch asks for release

[LolaRox]

If they don't grant it they are on the hook for 9 million dollars this season.

Seattle can't afford that. He WILL be released if he decides to play.

You're incorrect.

Seattle has plenty of money to pay Lynch 9M if push comes to shove. Would it suck? Yep but there's plenty of room to do it.

If I'm Seattle I am getting something from this no matter what. He's already been given everything he ever asked for and treated like royalty, even to the point of allowing him to keep guaranteed money that Seattle had every right to reclaim and give to the players still on the team.

This isn't really about Seattle vs Lynch though in my opinion. It's more about Seattle vs Oakland. Who does Oakland think they are that we need to give them something for nothing? Is it really that huge of a deal to throw a late round pick Seattle's way for the rights to Lynch? It's not as if Lynch wouldn't rework his contract to fit whatever they want to pay him. If they want to be stingy though Lynch can come out of retirement and play for the Seahawks so that when he goes to Oakland next year we get a Comp pick. Or he can be shipped off to Clevland, Jacksonville, or any team with a 7th round pick and some cap room.

exactly this

 

[Subzero717]

This is all rumor and speculation at this point.


Title of the thread should be changed

 

[Hyak]

Actually various credible sources (NFLN, Gregg Bell, Condotta) say that Lynch HAS NOT yet asked the Seahawks for his release. In fact, he has to apply for reinstatement from the NFL before anything can happen in terms of his status.

Jordan Schultz is a schmuck and shame on MSN for using that as a viable source.

 

[bigskydoc]

It would not be difficult to free up the money to re-activate Lynch. Ultimately, we probably wouldn't have to though.

If I was PC/JS, and there is any truth to all of this, I would re-activate Lynch and give him the option. Either we will trade you to Oakland if you re-pay a pro-rated portion of the signing bonus, or we will shop you around. No way are we paying for him to play for Oakland, by letting him keep all of the bonus.

I would guess he would garner a 5th round selection in trade, or maybe a conditional 5th that would drop if he doesn't achieve some level of production.

 

[Popeyejones]

Either we will trade you to Oakland if you re-pay a pro-rated portion of the signing bonus, or we will shop you around.

Shop him around to whom and for what? There's a team sitting around which is going to give up assets for the privilege of paying an unretired, 31 year old Marshawn Lynch 9 million dollars per year?

If you don't have that part of the equation you can't demand anything of him.

The house of cards falls apart the moment he applies for reinstatement, because the Hawks neither have (1) the need for him at the position, nor (2) the cap room to pay him the money they owe him if he applies for reinstatement.

I guess they can shuffle contracts just so they can spite and keep a player they don't need or want, but that would be JS cutting off his nose to spite his face.

 

[Popeyejones]

IMO it would just be spiteful and petty for the Hawks to try to demand something for him -- he literally has no value for them and if he comes out of retirement they'd just have to cut him anyway.

Really? Seattle let him keep his bonus when he retired. That was pretty generous and a thank you gift for his time served. Why is it petty for Seattle to expect Lynch to hold up his end of the deal. Stay retired.

Players could just retire and unretire to get out of their contracts if this was ok.

(1) It's totally customary to let older players and star players keep their bonuses when they retire. It's not some out of the blue generous gift, it's just the way the NFL works. When the 9ers asked for Chris Borland's bonus back when he retired 9 months after being drafted people here had a field day about how cheap and petty they were being.

If you want to make the argument that he should give the bonus back because he's unretiring, why? If he unretires he doesn't owe the Hawks a dime. Instead, they owe him 9 million dollars. They are free to cut him or pay him the money they owe him.

(2) It's not petty to expect Lynch to stay retired. It will be viewed as petty for the Hawks to try to prevent him from running a glory lap for his hometown team when they neither need him or want him on their team.

(3) People can't just retire and unretire to get out of their contracts. If they could, we would see it happen, but we don't. NFL players get like 8 years of salary from being football players if they're lucky -- nobody is giving up one of those years by retiring just to get out of contracts (it's why we see things like holdouts instead, and even with holdouts nobody EVER holds out for the whole year).

 

[Popeyejones]

If Seattle wants to recoup that signing bonus money it basically means Marshawn would be playing for free this year with the Raiders (i.e. pay back Seahawks for portion of signing bonus and then make $3-5 million with Raiders).

Nah, it doesn't work that way. If he applies for reinstatement there is no signing bonus money to recoup as he's still under contract with the Seahawks.

Lynch then doesn't "owe" the Hawks money, they owe HIM 9 million dollars this year. Lynch would either (1) make 9 million dollars playing for the Seahawks this year or (2) make whatever the Raiders pay him if the Seahawks decide to cut him rather than pay him another 9 million.

 

[Diezel Dawg]

Why do we care if the draft picks are too high for Marshawn if a trade happens? Hawks demand a higher pick if the Raiders want him. He has had a year to rest up and heal. He was an elite RB. If he comes back and has a monster year and we only get a 6th or a 7th Rd pick, then we will be saying they stole him. This is Oakland's risk to bring him in. I say at least a 3rd Rd pick, no lower than 4th. Start with high demand and negotiate from there if they want him.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Popeyejones]

Why do we care if the draft picks are too high for Marshawn if a trade happens? Hawks demand a higher pick if the Raiders want him. He has had a year to rest up and heal. He was an elite RB. If he comes back and has a monster year and we only get a 6th or a 7th Rd pick, then we will be saying they stole him. This is Oakland's risk to bring him in. I say at least a 3rd Rd pick, no lower than 4th. Start with high demand and negotiate from there if they want him.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

The Hawks would need to want Marshawn Lynch on their team at 9 million this year for them to demand anything in trade, and the other team would need to want Marshawn Lynch on their team at 9 million this year for them to want to trade.

There's no way either of those things are true.

If Lynch applies for reinstatement the Hawks two options are to either (1) pay him 9 million dollars to be on their team this year, or (2) cut him. That's it (save for option #3, which I think is the most likely one: the Raiders give the Hawks 7th rounder as tokenistic gesture of appreciation).

 

[Donn2390]

I see two problems if this deal were to go through. First, the Raiders would be getting a beat up, worn out, old man in Lynch. Second, Las Vegas isn't anywhere close to where Lynch lives. He might be a raider but not an Oakland Raider...

 

[kf3339]

I doubt this goes anywhere at all with ML.

He seems to really enjoy retirement and there are no reports he has been putting in the time and effort to get back into football shape for a return.

If this becomes the case I do think the Raiders may very well give up a later 5th to 7th round pick to bring him onto their team. I don't think he would force the issue with the team, as there was no real negative feelings when he made the decision to retire the first time. Also, there are several news reports that do imply possible player tampering by the Raiders that the Hawks could question with the league. Why would ML or the Raiders want to go down that path just to save a mid to late round draft pick? Makes no sense to me at all.

At least that is what I hope happens for all concerned.

 

[nanomoz]

Nfl.com says the opposite.

 

[Seafan]

Non story.



http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/nf ... 69818.html

 

[CPHawk]

If the raiders have been talking to him, and he's still under contract, isn't that tampering?

 

[TAB420]

Yes sir.

 

[IrishNW]

Just watched Michael Robinson's video on his twitter. Say's he knows the answer but cant say right now, he then goes on to say that "IF" marshawn lynch was in shape and "IF" he was ready to go why would Seattle let him go? maybe lynch comes back and stays in seattle?

 

[Popeyejones]

Just watched Michael Robinson's video on his twitter. Say's he knows the answer but cant say right now, he then goes on to say that "IF" marshawn lynch was in shape and "IF" he was ready to go why would Seattle let him go? maybe lynch comes back and stays in seattle?

I think the two reasons Seattle would let him go are as follows:

(1) After factoring in their thee signings of the last 48 hours and the money allocated to the draft pool the Seahawks are probably about 3 million under the cap. Ever team likes to start the year with at least a million or two of cap room so that they can replenish their roster on minimum deals when injuries happen during the season.

So, to keep him, purely from a monetary perspective, the Hawks are going to have to restructure about 7-8 million dollars for other players out of the cap this year and into future year cap hits. Would they do this? Why would do this, particularly given reason #2:

(2) With Lacy, Rawls, and Prosise what are they going to do with Marshawn Lynch on their team? He'll be the the second highest paid back in the NFL and part of a four man platoon, or Lacy, Rawls, and Prosise will just spend the year on the bench?

Assuming Bell signs long-term and is off his franchise tag and Lynch is back with the Seahawks on his current contract, he'll definitely be the highest paid RB in the NFL next year. It's just not gonna happen. I'm not being facetious or a jerk: I just don't think JS and PC are that crazy or stupid.


It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Subzero717]

I think Carroll planted this story to get everyone off the "we're trading Sherm trail."

 

[Uncle Si]

Just watched Michael Robinson's video on his twitter. Say's he knows the answer but cant say right now, he then goes on to say that "IF" marshawn lynch was in shape and "IF" he was ready to go why would Seattle let him go? maybe lynch comes back and stays in seattle?

I think the two reasons Seattle would let him go are as follows:

(1) After factoring in their thee signings of the last 48 hours and the money allocated to the draft pool the Seahawks are probably about 3 million under the cap. Ever team likes to start the year with at least a million or two of cap room so that they can replenish their roster on minimum deals when injuries happen during the season.

So, to keep him, purely from a monetary perspective, the Hawks are going to have to restructure about 7-8 million dollars for other players out of the cap this year and into future year cap hits. Would they do this? Why would do this, particularly given reason #2:

(2) With Lacy, Rawls, and Prosise what are they going to do with Marshawn Lynch on their team? He'll be the the second highest paid back in the NFL and part of a four man platoon, or Lacy, Rawls, and Prosise will just spend the year on the bench?

Assuming Bell signs long-term and is off his franchise tag and Lynch is back with the Seahawks on his current contract, he'll definitely be the highest paid RB in the NFL next year. It's just not gonna happen. I'm not being facetious or a jerk: I just don't think JS and PC are that crazy or stupid.


It just doesn't make any sense.

Or, more simply I think, they don't want Lynch, at really any cost. They clearly were not pursuing him prior to this story, nor had Lynch made any intimations he wanted a return.

If lynch does want to play I imagine it would only be for the Raiders and I'm sure it won't be for a heavy salary. Seattle may try and squeeze a draft pick (late round) out of it but doubt they try too hard.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^ Yep. 100% agreed. I had tried the short and sweet version before but it didn't really seem to be convincing people, so I figured I'd spell out all the details to make the case.

So, with two paragraphs of details I have the same conclusion you do: They don't want Lynch. Full stop. You're absolutely spot on IMO. :2thumbs: