mikeak":3ic33py5 said:
A trade is giving in. So my point is that I don't see how trading him doesn't set a precedent.
Depends on the trade. I keep seeing posts suggesting the best we could get for Kam in a trade is a 4th or a 6th, and I just don't believe that at all. The Seahawks have obviously made their decision about moving on with Kam sitting at home, still on the team. They are not actively shopping him (that we know of). But that doesn't mean they wouldn't listen to an offer from a team that is desperate for help. It's a seller's market. I can easily imagine a marginal team with cap room having a DB go down, and deciding they can make Kam happier than he is now with a new contract, and that he is worth giving up a high price for.
In other words, trading Kam wouldn't be a clearance sale, which
would set a bad precedent. It would be taking advantage of a deal that is too good to pass up, which would
not be a bad precedent to set.
As a matter of fact, that precedent has already been set, with the Joey Galloway trade. Granted, that was a different regime, different CBA, etc. But it was the same situation -- a malcontent key player wanting a new deal, and Seahawks in a position where they had to do something without setting a bad precedent and opening Pandora's Box. The same situation we are in now.
Sgt. Largent":3ic33py5 said:
If the Hawks don't to set a bad precedent by giving Kam a new deal, then why would another team also tear up the last three years of his deal in a trade. Doesn't that also set a bad precedent for the league?
That sort of thing wouldn't be a precedent. Reworking a contract to facilitate a trade happens all the time. Number of years left on a contract doesn't matter in that case.