Pay Kam

[BlueTalon]

With Kam, who is a multi-millionaire, showing his true nature these last few weeks . . . how in the world could any team trust him to perform. . .and not for him to decide to go on another hold-out, maybe in the middle of a season instead of in pre-season?

Even the most desperate NFL cellar dweller isn't going to want to have a cancer transplanted into their organization. . . . .

The answer to that of course is that teams, rightly or wrongly, conclude that what makes a player a cancer to one team doesn't necessarily translate to a new team, especially if the cause of the cancer is a perceived lack of respect due to not being paid what the player thinks he's worth. New team thinks if they pay the player enough for him to be happy, and provides an atmosphere where the player is respected, the cancer goes away.

I find it hilarious that Kam (and some fans here) think Kam is being "disrespected" in this.

When he signed the deal, we all thought the FO was nuts for giving him such a contract....there were multiple threads here saying as such.

Now, a few dozen months later, he is somehow disrespected by the same said deal?

Some are hoping he finds an atmosphere where he is respected?

What a joke. He was the king here 2 short months ago. He brought this on himself.

Preaching to the choir here. I'm just disputing the notion that other teams will look at the Kam situation and automatically conclude they can't afford to take a chance on him because he is a cancer.

 

[BlueTalon]

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.

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.

And let's recall now that boy oh boy, seahawks didn't set a bad precedent when they traded Galloway. They just lost a really good player and set their playoff chances back five years.

So they shot themselves in the foot, but hey, they didn't set a bad precedent. Way to win.

What alternate history are you remembering? Joey Galloway held out half of his last season with us, so it's not like he was helping us win anyway. And that trade netted us two 1st round picks, one of which became Shaun Alexander.

There were many other factors that caused our lack of success at the time. But we reached the playoffs four years later anyway.

 

[c_hawkbob]

The problem with guaranteeing contracts is the violent nature of the NFL. Sure, there is plenty of money flowing around and guaranteed contracts wouldn't bankrupt any team; but with the hard salary cap injuries could really kill a teams competitive opportunities for years. And a highly competitive league is the reason there is so much money flowing in. Let the inmates run the asylum and you put that at risk.

You could make exceptions in the salary caps for injuries, but the second you do that players will start faking injuries to get away from bad teams (without losing a dime) and teams would try and do the same to skirt the salary cap hits they take when cutting players.

Long story short; Salary cap + frequent serious career affecting injuries makes guaranteed contracts infeasible

Certainly if guaranteed contracts started to become the norm the salary cap would need adjustment in the next CBA, but as long as the NFL maintains their revenue sharing (the real key to what makes the NFL business model work) guaranteed contracts would work just fine. There's way more than enough profit margin to make it all work.

I don't think it can be done because there is a hard salary cap in the NFL. The NBA or MLB can have fully guaranteed contracts because they do not have hard salary caps. This comes in to play when teams cut players.

The NFL free agency landscape would change dramatically because teams would have to hold on to underperforming players because there is no benefit of cutting them (i.e. they would count against the cap the same as if they are on the team or not). You would see shorter contracts with lower APY because teams getting caught in bad contracts would be disastrous to their salary cap.

It would be easier to manage a cap with guaranteed contracts.

Everybody would still have x amount of dollars to spend and there would be no dead cap money or signing bonuses to have to prorate or any such thing. When a player is signed the entire contract is funded up front so there is no need for signing bonuses. And when a player gets traded the team he is traded to acquires the entire contract along with the player. The only cap adjustment necessary would be a provision to fund the contracts of retired or injured players whose contracts are still active but can no longer be on the team.

The money is absolutely there in today's NFL to do this.

 

[TwistedHusky]

When I was in the military, I had a roommate who played football at Alabama. He was an offensive lineman and he screwed up his knee playing so they cut him.

Back then, colleges just cut guys when they got hurt. Now, my understanding, is that if you get hurt playing you don't lose your scholarship anymore. And on the surface most of us know that practice of cutting people that hurt themselves for you was unfair.

So now the NFL pays people significantly (maybe not if you are a rookie btw) so the risk of getting hurt is supposedly covered by the contract? We know that is not true.

The NFL needs players to play hard, but if they get hurt their deals allow teams to cut them with little to no consequence. The rationale for NOT doing guaranteed contracts is that players might feign injury but the reality is that players HAVE to play hurt. Because it is expected of them. There is not a football player I have met that did not play hurt over a period of time, or did not take an unreal amount of drugs/painkillers to offset that pain at some point. I guarantee that the reason guys are willing to put themselves at risk like that, is because if they do not....they do not earn.

THAT is the reason the NFL believes it cannot do guarantees.

But I think we all, just on a basic fairness level, believe that if a player significantly hurts himself doing something for the club - it probably is unfair he should face all the consequences of that, and that club just gets to cut him.

I am not saying there is an easy solution but it is not an unsolvable problem, and it probably is (in the long run) in the best interests of both sides to solve it. So that might mean putting a pool together for injured players, it might mean arbitration to define if a player cut performing club duties is entitled to some additional comp, and it might mean moving away from guaranteed #s in other areas to more performance incentives so the risk is balanced. But it isn't like with all the intelligent people out there and money at stake a reasonable solution cannot be found.

What Kam is saying, Mike Rob said and a lot of other football players are saying off the record is that the current deals are ridiculously slanted in favor of the clubs and are unfair. Some guys make only a few hundred thousand and get hurt, so you cannot just use "that is why they make so much money" as the excuse. If people get hurt doing what the club asks, it shouldn't just be them that bears all the cost. That is reasonable and fair.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

What Kam is saying, Mike Rob said and a lot of other football players are saying off the record is that the current deals are ridiculously slanted in favor of the clubs and are unfair. Some guys make only a few hundred thousand and get hurt, so you cannot just use "that is why they make so much money" as the excuse. If people get hurt doing what the club asks, it shouldn't just be them that bears all the cost. That is reasonable and fair.

There certainly in a growing "middle class" gap in the NFL. Teams, like the Hawks are choosing to pay their stars big money, and rely on younger newly drafted players to fill in the other roles cheaply. This means very little cap space for guys like Clinton McDonald, Red Bryant, etc. Guys in the 1-3M year range.

BUT, Kam is not one of those players, so your point doesn't work for him. He is one of the stars, and is being paid as such. Dude can make 28M if he plays out his contract, and has already been paid almost 10M.

Kam was the highest paid SS when he signed his deal. THAT'S the issue here, players don't like it when they get passed up in salary as the years go by, so they cry for a new deal when newer deals are signed.

They ALL know this, so if they don't like that, sign shorter deals. Higher risk, but higher reward cause you get to your new deal sooner.

 

[QUILCENE]

Contract Notes:
$7.8 million guaranteed (signing bonus + 2013 base)
Incentives: $5.7 million
2013 Pro Bowl :$100,000
2014 base guarantees 5 days after 2013 superbowl
2015 base guarantees 2/6/15
2017 Per Game Bonus: $20,313

2014 he got all the money- 2015 after Feb. 6 he was getting the base of 4,282,000 guaranteed- ( now he is paying some of that back)-

IF he would come in, his negotiating leverage is much greater for the team to guarantee the 2016 money-

So I do not find it unfair as he is being paid very well for two years of service so far- and he is now having to cough some of the guaranteed money back- too bad.

Kam Chancellor signed a 4 year, $28,002,008 contract with the Seattle Seahawks, including a $5,000,000 signing bonus, $7,825,000 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $7,000,502. In 2015, Chancellor will earn a base salary of $4,282,352 and a incentive bonus of $100,000. Chancellor has a cap hit of $5,382,352 while his dead money value is $7,550,000.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seah ... hancellor/

So, lets not delude ourselves:

What Kam is saying, Mike Rob said and a lot of other football players are saying off the record is that the current deals are ridiculously slanted in favor of the clubs and are unfair. Some guys make only a few hundred thousand and get hurt, so you cannot just use "that is why they make so much money" as the excuse. If people get hurt doing what the club asks, it shouldn't just be them that bears all the cost. That is reasonable and fair.

His contract has, and would pay him much more than what "some" guys make-

 

[andyh64000]

What Kam is saying, Mike Rob said and a lot of other football players are saying off the record is that the current deals are ridiculously slanted in favor of the clubs and are unfair. Some guys make only a few hundred thousand and get hurt, so you cannot just use "that is why they make so much money" as the excuse. If people get hurt doing what the club asks, it shouldn't just be them that bears all the cost. That is reasonable and fair.

There certainly in a growing "middle class" gap in the NFL. Teams, like the Hawks are choosing to pay their stars big money, and rely on younger newly drafted players to fill in the other roles cheaply. This means very little cap space for guys like Clinton McDonald, Red Bryant, etc. Guys in the 1-3M year range.

BUT, Kam is not one of those players, so your point doesn't work for him. He is one of the stars, and is being paid as such. Dude can make 28M if he plays out his contract, and has already been paid almost 10M.

Kam was the highest paid SS when he signed his deal. THAT'S the issue here, players don't like it when they get passed up in salary as the years go by, so they cry for a new deal when newer deals are signed.

They ALL know this, so if they don't like that, sign shorter deals. Higher risk, but higher reward cause you get to your new deal sooner.

I am guessing a shorter deal wasn't an option (the Hawks required the non-guaranteed years). Good deal or bad deal it is what it is. Nobody is a winner in this and unfortunately emotions seem to have taken over which is never a good thing when trying to put a deal together.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I am guessing a shorter deal wasn't an option (the Hawks required the non-guaranteed years). Good deal or bad deal it is what it is. Nobody is a winner in this and unfortunately emotions seem to have taken over which is never a good thing when trying to put a deal together.

Any and all deals are an option, so I'm not sure what you mean.

Kam didn't have a gun held to his head when he signed his deal. He could have held out then for a shorter more lucrative deal with more guaranteed cash...........and he probably would have got it because at the time we had a ton of cap space what with all these guys still playing on their rookie deals.

 

[TheHawkster]

Simple answer.....
See ya Week #10 Kam.

He's not going farther than that.

 

[andyh64000]

I am guessing a shorter deal wasn't an option (the Hawks required the non-guaranteed years). Good deal or bad deal it is what it is. Nobody is a winner in this and unfortunately emotions seem to have taken over which is never a good thing when trying to put a deal together.

Any and all deals are an option, so I'm not sure what you mean.

Kam didn't have a gun held to his head when he signed his deal. He could have held out then for a shorter more lucrative deal with more guaranteed cash...........and he probably would have got it because at the time we had a ton of cap space what with all these guys still playing on their rookie deals.

If that is true then he should fire his agent because he signed a horrible deal.

 

[TwistedHusky]

They cannot sign shorter deals as a solution at all.

Because if they get hurt, they cannot sign a deal period. That is the problem.

And I would argue if you remove that risk, you make it easier for a club to sign longer deals that make cap management easier. You could almost take negotiation long term out of the mix if you wanted, if you are the 32nd best RB you make X, if you are the 12th best RB you make X + Y. Almost like the salary on draft slots is done, but instead on production slots (of course you would have to break production down into categories and have both individual and performance goals) but it isn't like it isn't possible.

The issue there is that production in football often depends upon your teammates ability to do their jobs, but coaches do have grades for player performance in game and it shouldn't be some massive task to tie grading on factors you control to overall performance grades that comp #s come from.

Now that is a bigger issue than Kam's holdout, but the point being I still maintain the current contracts are written in a way that works badly for both sides long term and it is in their best interest to fix.

And because each side sees the bad stuff they get stuck with, each feels the other is getting over on them.

There are resources and data that was not available 10-20 years ago, and I am bettering a lot of the framework and templates how all these current agreements were formed stem from agreements that were put in place then too.

 

[MVP53]

I know this is going to be a terribly unpopular thing to say, but maybe the NFL just needs to start guaranteeing contracts like everybody else, that would eliminate all this crap.

Back when the League profits were measured in the hundreds of thousands it was not feasible to guarantee contracts for such a dangerous sport, but with profits now in the billions, and with all the scrutinuy on the NFL taking care of it's retired players with medical issues (especially brain related), it's time to make the change.

It wouldn't break my heart if we were the ones to open that Pandora's box for Kam

Admittedly, most of you guys know NFL contracts better than I, but it seems to me, NFL contracts are like MLB contracts that include club options.

Couldn't "4 years, $28M, with roughly $13M guaranteed" just be reworded as "2 years, $13M, with 2 club option years"?

 

[Chukarhawk]

LET. HIM. ROT. No trade. when he comes back he is benched for however many games he sat out. make an example out of him so much so that it will hencforth be called "A Kam Chancellor"

 

[Sgt. Largent]

They cannot sign shorter deals as a solution at all.

Because if they get hurt, they cannot sign a deal period. That is the problem.

So let me get this straight. The players like longer deals for more security, but they also like to renegotiate after only two years now when everyone else is making more money. That's an amazing deal for them!

Sorry man, doesn't work for me. Kam did what all the players do, sign a 4-5 year deal with the majority of their bonus and guaranteed money up front so if they get hurt during the contract chances are they've made all their guaranteed money..........or at least most of it.

The players know how this works. Get to your last year, and get paid again. Kam's the one trying to turn the NFL on it's head with this nonsense.

 

[andyh64000]

Current Seahawks defensive contracts vs Kam

Bennett
CONTRACT:4 yr(s) / $28,500,000
SIGNING BONUS$8,000,000
AVERAGE SALARY$7,125,000
GUARANTEED:$16,000,000
KJ
CONTRACT:4 yr(s) / $27,000,000
SIGNING BONUS$5,000,000
AVERAGE SALARY$6,750,000
GUARANTEED:$8,750,000
Avril
CONTRACT:4 yr(s) / $28,500,000
SIGNING BONUS
$2,500,000
AVERAGE SALARY$7,125,000
GUARANTEED:$16,000,000
Sherman
CONTRACT:4 yr(s) / $56,000,000
SIGNING BONUS$11,000,000
AVERAGE SALARY$14,000,000
GUARANTEED:$40,000,000
Wagner
CONTRACT:4 yr(s) / $43,000,000
SIGNING BONUS$8,000,000
AVERAGE SALARY$10,750,000
GUARANTEED:$21,977,427
Earl
CONTRACT:4 yr(s) / $40,000,000
SIGNING BONUS $9,500,000
AVERAGE SALARY $10,000,000
GUARANTEED: $25,725,000

vs:
Kam
CONTRACT:4 yr(s) / $28,002,008
SIGNING BONUS$5,000,000
AVERAGE SALARY$7,000,502
GUARANTEED:$7,825,000

 

[CodeWarrior]

Kam was the highest paid SS when he signed his deal. THAT'S the issue here, players don't like it when they get passed up in salary as the years go by, so they cry for a new deal when newer deals are signed.

They ALL know this, so if they don't like that, sign shorter deals. Higher risk, but higher reward cause you get to your new deal sooner.

This. Kam was more than happy to take the safe option when it was presented to him, but now he's trying to use that same deal to play the victim. Laughable tactics. His story reads like a half-wit wrote it. Even more surprising is he actually has people taking his side.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

They cannot sign shorter deals as a solution at all.

Because if they get hurt, they cannot sign a deal period. That is the problem.

So let me get this straight. The players like longer deals for more security, but they also like to renegotiate after only two years now when everyone else is making more money. That's an amazing deal for them!

Sorry man, doesn't work for me. Kam did what all the players do, sign a 4-5 year deal with the majority of their bonus and guaranteed money up front so if they get hurt during the contract chances are they've made all their guaranteed money..........or at least most of it.

The players know how this works. Get to your last year, and get paid again. Kam's the one trying to turn the NFL on it's head with this nonsense.

Players don't take longer deals for more security. They have NO security in the NFL. The NFL can tear up a contract just like snapping their fingers. You're Cut. That's it. Got hurt? No more money for you. Buh Bye.

If players had THEIR way, they'd all be signing one year deals so as to maximize their profits. It's the NFL that wants long term contracts that they can tear up anytime they want. Taht's what gives THEM security.

You have it ass sdrawkcab.

 

[CodeWarrior]

They cannot sign shorter deals as a solution at all.

Because if they get hurt, they cannot sign a deal period. That is the problem.

So let me get this straight. The players like longer deals for more security, but they also like to renegotiate after only two years now when everyone else is making more money. That's an amazing deal for them!

Sorry man, doesn't work for me. Kam did what all the players do, sign a 4-5 year deal with the majority of their bonus and guaranteed money up front so if they get hurt during the contract chances are they've made all their guaranteed money..........or at least most of it.

The players know how this works. Get to your last year, and get paid again. Kam's the one trying to turn the NFL on it's head with this nonsense.

Players don't take longer deals for more security. They have NO security in the NFL. The NFL can tear up a contract just like snapping their fingers. You're Cut. That's it. Got hurt? No more money for you. Buh Bye.

If players had THEIR way, they'd all be signing one year deals so as to maximize their profits. It's the NFL that wants long term contracts that they can tear up anytime they want. Taht's what gives THEM security.

You have it ass sdrawkcab.

This is just completely wrong.

 

[Hollandhawk]

...If players had THEIR way, they'd all be signing one year deals so as to maximize their profits. It's the NFL that wants long term contracts that they can tear up anytime they want. Taht's what gives THEM security.

You have it ass sdrawkcab.

This makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Polaris]

That's not true. NFL Players *do* sign long term deals for the security. The security doesn't come from the length of the contract itself since (as noted) the team can tear it up at any time [and everyone knows this so it's still a contract]. Rather, it increases the amount of guaranteed money the player can get since the club has more years to prorate the cap hit while the player gets a significant portion of the money up front.

This is what Kam did. Kam wanted a huge (for the time) amount of up front guaranteed money, and he got it. However to get it, he had to accept a longer contract length. This is bog standard in the NFL. Now Kam has run out of his front loaded guaranteed and now wants more. If that sounds childish and sounds like someone that wants to have his proverbial cake and eat it too, well, it is childish. No team in the NFL can, could, or would give Kam what he wants even in appearance, esp now.