Tech Worlds
Active member
I am worth more than I'm being paid too. I need to fire my agent.
onanygivensunday":16pijd6i said:Here comes off-season distraction #1.
However this plays out, I hope that it is not prolonged.
Rob12":i19p52tr said:He's worth more than what he's being paid.
With that said, he signed the damn contract. He's got two years left. Ball out in 2016, and then we can talk. I respect the fact that he showed up to work when he was only making more money than I will earn in my lifetime (I know, apples and oranges). I wouldn't hate it if the Seahawks worked some more money into his deal somehow, but I really want this charade to stop. We all know you want more money, Mike. Let the process play out.
twisted_steel2":111jf6il said:Reward him. It sets a good precedent with other players.
Sgt. Largent":2ykt40wg said:twisted_steel2":2ykt40wg said:Reward him. It sets a good precedent with other players.
It also sets a bad precedent that any player can complain and even hold out with two or more years left on their contract.
twisted_steel2":1oz2yb4m said:Sgt. Largent":1oz2yb4m said:twisted_steel2":1oz2yb4m said:Reward him. It sets a good precedent with other players.
It also sets a bad precedent that any player can complain and even hold out with two or more years left on their contract.
No, that's the thing. Reward him for showing up on time, & not missing practice and playing well.
Don't reward Kam for holding out, and not showing up and not playing as well as he has in the past.
I see a distinct difference.
I agree. Perhaps make a bit more guaranteed.Hasselbeck":cu6r6bxd said:I don't understand the notion of rewarding him just because he showed up and played, that's what a player is supposed to do.
I'd have no problem maybe shuffling around some of his guaranteed money to this year as a reward for his play, but not for simply being the anti-Kam.. that makes no sense. 51 other guys probably wish they made more too and still showed up to play and participate in OTA's, training camp, etc.
Hasselbeck":2rbmucny said:I don't understand the notion of rewarding him just because he showed up and played, that's what a player is supposed to do.
I'd have no problem maybe shuffling around some of his guaranteed money to this year as a reward for his play, but not for simply being the anti-Kam.. that makes no sense. 51 other guys probably wish they made more too and still showed up to play and participate in OTA's, training camp, etc.
kearly":1ethbptb said:Hopefully it's just a case of Bennett thinking he can save a few bucks on a possible extension this offseason by negotiating it himself (as misguided as that might be), rather than being a sign of deep discontentment.
ivotuk":3rkymwqj said:You guys act like a player gets screwed out of promised money if they get cut. Not true.
When a player signs a contract, he asks for guaranteed money. Why? Because that is a known amount that he will receive whether he plays out the contract, gets cut, or has a career ending injury his first play back.
The player knows what he is going to get, and the team knows what they are going to pay out. Beyond that, there are no guarantees, and both parties know this. To say that some player getting cut somehow "screws" them is incorrect.
twisted_steel2":1m8wh9yi said:Hasselbeck":1m8wh9yi said:I don't understand the notion of rewarding him just because he showed up and played, that's what a player is supposed to do.
I'd have no problem maybe shuffling around some of his guaranteed money to this year as a reward for his play, but not for simply being the anti-Kam.. that makes no sense. 51 other guys probably wish they made more too and still showed up to play and participate in OTA's, training camp, etc.
And sometimes a player shows up and plays, and then gets cut.unno:
And you're not rewarding him because he 'just showed up and played'. You're rewarding him because he's become one of the best DE's in the NFL, and despite everyone knowing (including the Seahawk management) that he's outplayed his contract, he comes in on time and is a trooper.
Until all players total contracts are guaranteed, and the balance of power is equal to the teams ability to cut him, I'll support players who are vocal about their contracts when they play above the $$$ of the contract.
If a team feels a player is not playing to the $$$ level of the contract they can be cut/waived right?
And in the case of Bennett I think it sets a great precedent and incentive to players on the roster and potential free agents. "Wow the Seahawks really take care of their players, if you play really well, and be a good team mate, look how they reward you!"
Not hard to understand.
volsunghawk":w4xf7o2m said:Rob12":w4xf7o2m said:He's worth more than what he's being paid.
With that said, he signed the damn contract. He's got two years left. Ball out in 2016, and then we can talk. I respect the fact that he showed up to work when he was only making more money than I will earn in my lifetime (I know, apples and oranges). I wouldn't hate it if the Seahawks worked some more money into his deal somehow, but I really want this charade to stop. We all know you want more money, Mike. Let the process play out.
Ha. He's going to turn 31 in the middle of the 2016 season. How likely is it that John Schneider gives Bennett one last payday at that age?
Bennett has played for us for under market value year in and year out since returning to Seattle, and even though he's made noise about holding out, he's never missed significant time. Yeah, he's got a problem with jumping the snap, but even with that notable issue, he's been our most versatile D-lineman and most consistent disruptor.
And this board regularly craps all over him for having the gall to want to earn more money. :34853_doh: