Pay Kam

[Rocket]

Tough situation. Even the most staunch Kam detractors - and count me as one - have to believe that he would have been the difference today.

That doesn't mean for one damn second that I'd cave to his wants though.

:th2thumbs:

 

[seahawkfreak]

This game is a perfect way for Kam to save face. He comes in tomorrow morning saying he could not stand seeing his brothers lose without him and that contract talks can wait til offseason. Wishful thinking

 

[Torc]

The NFL teams can cut a guy and just forget about the contract anytime they want. If a player can't live up to his contract, they void it. But didn't THEY agree to a contract too? But an employee try to do the same and everyone is yelling Screw Kam. Well, he has a right to do the exact opposite of what the team would do to him.

He's playing ABOVE contract, so he's voiding it, just like they'd do if he played BELOW it.

This is one of the big fallacies in the game. If a player signs a contract, makes the team, and kind of half-asses it, the team has to pay him. If he gets injured and is just never quite able to come back from, say, a hip injury (how much did the Seahawks pay Percy to not play?), the team is paying him. Paul Allen can't say "my wrist is kind of sore, I'm not going to sign the paychecks this week." The ONLY way a team gets out of paying him is to release him, in which case he is free to sell his skills to the highest bidder. Yes, the team agreed to a contract....and part of the language of that contract is that the team can release the player. The team is living up to the contract, Kam is not.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

The NFL teams can cut a guy and just forget about the contract anytime they want. If a player can't live up to his contract, they void it. But didn't THEY agree to a contract too? But an employee try to do the same and everyone is yelling Screw Kam. Well, he has a right to do the exact opposite of what the team would do to him.

He's playing ABOVE contract, so he's voiding it, just like they'd do if he played BELOW it.

This is one of the big fallacies in the game. If a player signs a contract, makes the team, and kind of half-asses it, the team has to pay him. If he gets injured and is just never quite able to come back from, say, a hip injury (how much did the Seahawks pay Percy to not play?), the team is paying him. Paul Allen can't say "my wrist is kind of sore, I'm not going to sign the paychecks this week." The ONLY way a team gets out of paying him is to release him, in which case he is free to sell his skills to the highest bidder. Yes, the team agreed to a contract....and part of the language of that contract is that the team can release the player. The team is living up to the contract, Kam is not.

It goes BOTH ways.

True a player playing like crap gets paid that season but if Seattle signs a player for $1 million and plays like a $10 million player, the team won't give him a raise either for that year. Maybe next year, but that's not the point.

It goes both ways.

Kam offers a service. If he decides not to offer that service any more he doesn't contractually have to. The language of the contract covers ONLY if he actually plays. There's nothing in the contract that says he can't retire or hold out. Only that IF he does, he won't get paid.

It's not that hard.

 

[Hawkfan77]

This game is a perfect way for Kam to save face. He comes in tomorrow morning saying he could not stand seeing his brothers lose without him and that contract talks can wait til offseason. Wishful thinking

Thats an absolute slap in the face to the 46 guys who played today and busted their butts. If he says that I lose any remaining respect I might have had for him

 

[Hawkfan77]

The NFL teams can cut a guy and just forget about the contract anytime they want. If a player can't live up to his contract, they void it. But didn't THEY agree to a contract too? But an employee try to do the same and everyone is yelling Screw Kam. Well, he has a right to do the exact opposite of what the team would do to him.

He's playing ABOVE contract, so he's voiding it, just like they'd do if he played BELOW it.

Yeah, thats not true, not even a little bit. Someone doesn't have a firm grasp on contract rules in the NFL...

That's exactly how it is. Please explain how it's wrong.

Hawks got rid of Harvin, did they have to keep paying him for were they able to get out the contract? Plus were there any cap penalties to getting rid of him?

If teams can cut guys and forget about the contracts then what is dead cap space? What is guaranteed money? Please explain

 

[Tech Worlds]

Don't pay him! Fine him!

 

[WilsonMVP]

The NFL teams can cut a guy and just forget about the contract anytime they want. If a player can't live up to his contract, they void it. But didn't THEY agree to a contract too? But an employee try to do the same and everyone is yelling Screw Kam. Well, he has a right to do the exact opposite of what the team would do to him.

He's playing ABOVE contract, so he's voiding it, just like they'd do if he played BELOW it.

This is one of the big fallacies in the game. If a player signs a contract, makes the team, and kind of half-asses it, the team has to pay him. If he gets injured and is just never quite able to come back from, say, a hip injury (how much did the Seahawks pay Percy to not play?), the team is paying him. Paul Allen can't say "my wrist is kind of sore, I'm not going to sign the paychecks this week." The ONLY way a team gets out of paying him is to release him, in which case he is free to sell his skills to the highest bidder. Yes, the team agreed to a contract....and part of the language of that contract is that the team can release the player. The team is living up to the contract, Kam is not.

It goes BOTH ways.

True a player playing like crap gets paid that season but if Seattle signs a player for $1 million and plays like a $10 million player, the team won't give him a raise either for that year. Maybe next year, but that's not the point.

It goes both ways.

Kam offers a service. If he decides not to offer that service any more he doesn't contractually have to. The language of the contract covers ONLY if he actually plays. There's nothing in the contract that says he can't retire or hold out. Only that IF he does, he won't get paid.

It's not that hard.

So ..how much has he been paid the last 2 years. Seems like it was front loaded and now thats its not as much he wants to do it over to get more money

 

[Recon_Hawk]

The NFL teams can cut a guy and just forget about the contract anytime they want. If a player can't live up to his contract, they void it. But didn't THEY agree to a contract too? But an employee try to do the same and everyone is yelling Screw Kam. Well, he has a right to do the exact opposite of what the team would do to him.

He's playing ABOVE contract, so he's voiding it, just like they'd do if he played BELOW it.

Yeah, thats not true, not even a little bit. Someone doesn't have a firm grasp on contract rules in the NFL...

That's exactly how it is. Please explain how it's wrong.

Hawks got rid of Harvin, did they have to keep paying him for were they able to get out the contract? Plus were there any cap penalties to getting rid of him?

If teams can cut guys and forget about the contracts then what is dead cap space? What is guaranteed money? Please explain

The Seahawks are in the business of making investments whether it's draft picks or free agents.

Sometimes investments don't pay off.

That doesn't mean good investments shouldn't be rewarded because they made a bad investments elsewhere.

 

[scutterhawk]

We would've won today with Kam in the line up. He cost us a game, he shouldn't get rewarded for that.

No guarantee that we would have won with him on board today.
The Seahawks have LOST quite a few times playing against the Rams, WITH Kam in the St Lousy games.
If he gets any satisfaction watching his Seahawk brothers losing without his sorry ass in there helping them, you are 100% correct in saying that "He Shouldn't Get Rewarded"

 

[scutterhawk]

It remains to be said that this team can fix his contract and have a shot at winning, or based on the results today, find that the secondary is going to be the new weakness.

Paying Kam won't fix everything but all those people that felt he was not very important better reassess.

I suspect that if we are 0-2 the drumbeat will get louder but right now, I think Kam has every right to demand they fix his contract if he provides that much significant value.

Then again, we lost our DC, so maybe a much less effective D is the new normal. Or the position Kris vacated to take the DC job is now really hurting.

But clearly with Kam we win this game, because Kam can (A) Tackle and (B) Cover. (Go back to the SB to see that great play he made in coverage and there is plenty of additional tape beyond that). Current replacements? Cannot TACKLE or COVER.

That lost us the game. A game we could have won with a competent OC, admittedly.

But clearly missing #31 hurt us and at this point is directly responsible for an L.

Well that and signing Cary Williams...

It also remains to be said that you are wrong in your speculative assessment.
The whole Defense played like shit A LOT today, + the Seahawks LOST to the Rams last Season, WITH Kam on board. there are no guarantees that he would have single handedly won us this game either....Next.

 

[Hawkboi]

I hate to say it but I agree... Reason is for some reason is.... is the Defense doesn't have the leadership it has with Kam... It was obvious... No Boom, it was more Doom... I think the D was missing the missing link, and that's Kam... Pay Him and get this back together.... :thirishdrinkers:

 

[TwistedHusky]

We went to overtime.

Are you honestly trying to imply that you believe that Kam being on the field would not have produced results vs Dion what his name? Even a tiny movement of the needle means the scale would tip one direction.

Kam likely wouldn't have fallen down and I am going to bet Richie Cunningham wouldn't have been bulldozing through for 30 on his carries. Also, Kam plays some special teams so how many of those plays would have been different?

What about the TE running free getting KamTracked the moment he caught the ball near the sideline? You think a few of those passes would have been alligator armed?

Come on. Don't be an idiot.

Even the casual football fan saw multiple plays today that Kam would have impacted instead of our Rookie SS. Which would have meant no win for the Rams. We had a TD lead with 4 min to go in the game.

 

[Hawkfan77]

Come on. Don't be an idiot.

Take your own advice. You honestly want to Hawks to jeopardize their future because you're freaking out about one loss?

 

[RCATES]

I've been watching this game for over 25 years and as much as I hate to admit our secondary is garbage without Kam enforcing the middle. The entire secondary looked confused and out of sync all day. Bailey was running around and out of position to many times. Seattle will not be able to run the same defense that has brought them so much success with Kam out of the lineup. I expect Kam to be payed and stamped no later then tomorrow evening. If not we go 0-2 and can kiss the #1 seed goodbye. Arizona is for real, GB has a cupcake schedule and is in a terrible division and winning against Seattle will give them a 2.5 game lead. I never imagined our secondary would change so much with Kam out of the line-up. But we got waxed by Nick Foles and a TE none of us have even heard of before today.

 

[A-Dog]

Chancellor does Carroll's 'dirty work,' Robinson says

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...cellor-does-carrolls-dirty-work-robinson-says

"He's a guy who, he lines (safety) Earl Thomas up, that's what he told me this week. I said Kam, I played with you for four years and I didn't even know that."

The two are friends, which should be noted. But Thomas essentially said the same thing this week during an interview with reporters in Seattle, noting that "I depended on Kam to say, 'You need to get on this side or that side.' It put me in my playbook a little bit more. I rely on instinct, and Kam was more the mental guy."

 

[andyh64000]

I think we should all cut off our noses to spite our faces.

 

[Spin Doctor]

The NFL teams can cut a guy and just forget about the contract anytime they want. If a player can't live up to his contract, they void it. But didn't THEY agree to a contract too? But an employee try to do the same and everyone is yelling Screw Kam. Well, he has a right to do the exact opposite of what the team would do to him.

He's playing ABOVE contract, so he's voiding it, just like they'd do if he played BELOW it.

The NFL teams can cut a guy, but they are still liable for the guaranteed part of the contract -- even if they are named Jamarcus Russell, or perhaps Bob Sanders whom was injured most of his career. Termination comes with a fee, on the flipside players sign these contracts knowing that there are clauses included in that contract that allow the NFL teams to release players at any time. The moment that they put that ink on the contract they agree to this.

I'm not sorry for Kam, not one bit. He agreed to this, and he is still among one of the highest paid strong safeties in the game. He is making more than you, or I will ever see during our lifetimes in just one year worth of work. Your analogy about the work force is not valid here. If a single employee was holding out for more money, and didn't come to work they would be terminated and replaced immediately.

Kam needs to shut up, stop crying and do his damn job.

 

[Polaris]

Chancellor does Carroll's 'dirty work,' Robinson says

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...cellor-does-carrolls-dirty-work-robinson-says

"He's a guy who, he lines (safety) Earl Thomas up, that's what he told me this week. I said Kam, I played with you for four years and I didn't even know that."

The two are friends, which should be noted. But Thomas essentially said the same thing this week during an interview with reporters in Seattle, noting that "I depended on Kam to say, 'You need to get on this side or that side.' It put me in my playbook a little bit more. I rely on instinct, and Kam was more the mental guy."

I am starting to wonder if Robinson might be the source of Kam's bad advice....not that Kam doesn't own his actions entirely, just wondering.....

 

[andyh64000]

Chancellor does Carroll's 'dirty work,' Robinson says

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...cellor-does-carrolls-dirty-work-robinson-says

"He's a guy who, he lines (safety) Earl Thomas up, that's what he told me this week. I said Kam, I played with you for four years and I didn't even know that."

The two are friends, which should be noted. But Thomas essentially said the same thing this week during an interview with reporters in Seattle, noting that "I depended on Kam to say, 'You need to get on this side or that side.' It put me in my playbook a little bit more. I rely on instinct, and Kam was more the mental guy."

I am starting to wonder if Robinson might be the source of Kam's bad advice....not that Kam doesn't own his actions entirely, just wondering.....

At this point...it might not have been bad advice. He is clearly a critically important part of the team with an open Super Bowl window that will be closed soon. The team can stand on principal and let the window close or they can try to win now.