Seahawks Could Lose All Their Free Agents...

[Sarlacc83]

NE was earlier mentioned as a model for using good sense in managing the cap.
They currently have 3 players making 8 figures.
Looking at Okung, and the upcoming contracts for ET, Sherm, and Russell, that would be 4 making 8 figures. That might be a bit much.

You can stagger the cap hits, so that only a few players are hitting your cap at double digits in any given year through 2016. NE also had Aaron Hernandez hitting them at $7.5m and still had $4m+ in free cap space. The NFL cap goes up a few million in 2014 and is expected to go even higher in 2015 after revenues from CBS TNF are factored in. It will certainly be tight, but that's the reality of any team with championship core. This a good problem.

Seattle has 2 million to roll over and there are rumors that the cap will be near 130m instead of 126. That leaves Seattle with 132-133 million this year, which will help Seattle come to terms with its free agents/desirable signings. If they lower the cap hit so they can roll the savings over to 2015, they'll be in excellent condition. At least, that's what I assume is going to happen. I wouldn't be surprised if Seattle had 5 million to roll into Wilson's signing year.

 

[Lady Talon]

It's sort of annoying that people just assume Sherman is going to ask for an astronomical contract. Why does no one assume Earl will ask for some crazy amount? Or Russell? Because their quiet? It's sad that some people have the same prejudices about his character as the national people who don't know him as well.

Please look at the list of contracts for CBs with guaranteed money. None of them are making franchise QB money. So I ask...what evidence does anyone have that he's going to demand a huge contract besides the fact that he's talkative?

Sorry to annoy you as that is not my intention. I wish to turn your table a bit and ask what evidence do you have that he wont demand a huge contract?
I am positive during this off season that JS will be taking Sherm's temperature regarding an extension. We all know he loves being a Seahawk but sometimes wierd things happen during contract talks.

I understand that, but I've noticed that no one seems to be assuming that Earl Thomas or Russell Wilson will be demanding contracts that are 50-100% above market value, so why Sherman? I operate on the assumption that all three are willing to extend for market value. Looking at the salaries for safeties and cornerbacks, I think we can extend both. Again, I expect Sherman/Thomas to extend for a max cap number of ~$22m. The same amount we spent on Miller/Rice last year. They would both still be the highest paid at their position in this scenario. In terms of contracts with GUARANTEED money, the highest paid safety makes $8-9m and the highest paid CB makes $10-11m. Why would I assume either Sherman or Thomas would demand significantly more than that?

I continue to encourage everyone to ignore Revis's salary. It is NOT GUARANTEED, and he will either be restructured this year or cut next year. Sherman will take a deal with less money PER YEAR, but with a higher guaranty. It won't cripple us.

Except that 2nd tier of CBs below Darrell Revis at least a few years into their contracts, aren't they?

If the salary cap increases, then future contracts are going to reflect that increase.

So, how much better is Richard Sherman than the likes of Bailey, Carr, Finnegan, Joseph, Hall, and Flowers?

How many hidden performance bonuses do you think will be included in this necessary deal? Do you think someone as elite as Sherm won't make them yearly and accelerate his salary?

You're AbSOLUTELY sure he won't value himself at 13-14m, knowing hes an irreplaceable future HoF? That is after all, quite a bargain as he's better then Revis but not as greedy, and better at life than the CB's you want him to value himself at.

Our defense is in danger of losing 21.5 sacks if you count up the FA's and almost certain cap casualties. We've seen where inadequate pass rushing left us in 2012. We saw where a competent pass rush left us in Super Bowl 48.

All this talk of hometown discounts, staying together, and I love this city have been said before in other cities and on other championship teams, after all. Sometimes it pans out, most of the time it's fantasy.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I tend to ignore such negative nonsense given how wrong everyone has been about this FO and players since 2010. We're not Baltimore which PURPOSELY let go every 3rd contract FA and a couple 2nd contract ones(because they already had a better replacement on the roster) we will lose 3-4 guys but trust me we already have their replacement on the roster or is on our short list of targeted FA's.

 

[DavidSeven]

Talon, I don't know 100% that Sherman won't price himself out of an extension. It's possible. It's just NOT my starting assumption. Anyway, if Sherman turns down a respectable offer from Seattle, then he'll play out 2014 and get franchised in 2015. That will be a calculated decision on his part and no one's feelings will get hurt as long as communication is open on both sides.

All I'm saying is that it's possible to do a reasonable deal with both Sherman and Thomas this off-season. If it doesn't work out, you can extend one now and franchise the other in 2015. As long as you make the right overtures to both players, there's zero risk of alienating them even if one ends up franchised. They'll both be here through 2015 at a manageable cap number no matter what happens.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

It's sort of annoying that people just assume Sherman is going to ask for an astronomical contract. Why does no one assume Earl will ask for some crazy amount? Or Russell? Because their quiet? It's sad that some people have the same prejudices about his character as the national people who don't know him as well.

Please look at the list of contracts for CBs with guaranteed money. None of them are making franchise QB money. So I ask...what evidence does anyone have that he's going to demand a huge contract besides the fact that he's talkative?

Sorry to annoy you as that is not my intention. I wish to turn your table a bit and ask what evidence do you have that he wont demand a huge contract?
I am positive during this off season that JS will be taking Sherm's temperature regarding an extension. We all know he loves being a Seahawk but sometimes wierd things happen during contract talks.

I understand that, but I've noticed that no one seems to be assuming that Earl Thomas or Russell Wilson will be demanding contracts that are 50-100% above market value, so why Sherman? I operate on the assumption that all three are willing to extend for market value. Looking at the salaries for safeties and cornerbacks, I think we can extend both. Again, I expect Sherman/Thomas to extend for a max cap number of ~$22m. The same amount we spent on Miller/Rice last year. They would both still be the highest paid at their position in this scenario. In terms of contracts with GUARANTEED money, the highest paid safety makes $8-9m and the highest paid CB makes $10-11m. Why would I assume either Sherman or Thomas would demand significantly more than that?

I continue to encourage everyone to ignore Revis's salary. It is NOT GUARANTEED, and he will either be restructured this year or cut next year. Sherman will take a deal with less money PER YEAR, but with a higher guaranty. It won't cripple us.

Except that 2nd tier of CBs below Darrell Revis at least a few years into their contracts, aren't they?

If the salary cap increases, then future contracts are going to reflect that increase.

So, how much better is Richard Sherman than the likes of Bailey, Carr, Finnegan, Joseph, Hall, and Flowers?

How many hidden performance bonuses do you think will be included in this necessary deal? Do you think someone as elite as Sherm won't make them yearly and accelerate his salary?

You're AbSOLUTELY sure he won't value himself at 13-14m, knowing hes an irreplaceable future HoF? That is after all, quite a bargain as he's better then Revis but not as greedy, and better at life than the CB's you want him to value himself at.

Our defense is in danger of losing 21.5 sacks if you count up the FA's and almost certain cap casualties. We've seen where inadequate pass rushing left us in 2012. We saw where a competent pass rush left us in Super Bowl 48.

All this talk of hometown discounts, staying together, and I love this city have been said before in other cities and on other championship teams, after all. Sometimes it pans out, most of the time it's fantasy.

1. If Sherman gets major endorsements, it will drive his price down somewhat.

2. If the Legion of Boom franchise continues to get bigger and bigger, it will drive his price down.

 

[HawkWow]

Talon, I don't know 100% that Sherman won't price himself out of an extension. It's possible. It's just NOT my starting assumption. Anyway, if Sherman turns down a respectable offer from Seattle, then he'll play out 2014 and get franchised in 2015. That will be a calculated decision on his part and no one's feelings will get hurt as long as communication is open on both sides.

Should we win another SB before that projected (my word) departure after 15, your approach would be the right one. If we don't, and few do, all that happens is we lose Sherman when we could have probably secured a top O-lineman (my choice) for the next decade by busting a move with Sherm now.

To be clear, I am not saying I think we should trade Sherman. We all want Sherman to stay, but if it's probable we will not pay his asking price after 15, we missed a huge opportunity now while he has major trade value. I am happy I don't have to make such decisions. It won't be / shouldn't be an easy one to make. IMO.

 

[DavidSeven]

Talon, I don't know 100% that Sherman won't price himself out of an extension. It's possible. It's just NOT my starting assumption. Anyway, if Sherman turns down a respectable offer from Seattle, then he'll play out 2014 and get franchised in 2015. That will be a calculated decision on his part and no one's feelings will get hurt as long as communication is open on both sides.

Should we win another SB before that projected (my word) departure after 15, your approach would be the right one. If we don't, and few do, all that happens is we lose Sherman when we could have probably secured a top O-lineman (my choice) for the next decade by busting a move with Sherm now.

To be clear, I am not saying I think we should trade Sherman. We all want Sherman to stay, but if it's probable we will not pay his asking price after 15, we missed a huge opportunity now while he has major trade value. I am happy I don't have to make such decisions. It won't be / shouldn't be an easy one to make. IMO.

Well, I believe you can franchise him more than once or gamble that his price comes down after 2015. We franchised Walter Jones multiple times. So, realistically, a departure after 2015 isn't a forgone conclusion, even if you don't do an extension now. But again, I honestly don't expect his number to be unreasonable anyway -- this is last resort talk.

Additionally, a team isn't giving up a top-10 pick for Sherman (which is what it would take to assure a top-flight linemen). The rookie wage-scale makes that a losing proposition for any team. Harvin's value last year was pretty comparable to Sherman's value this year. MN got a the equivalent of a pick in the mid-20s (addition of a 3rd doesn't push it up that high). Even then, people thought Seattle overspent.

 

[Lady Talon]

So not extending him and franchising him is preferable to shopping him as a trade possibility pending a fair contract and picking up some needed draft capital? Even though the former is far more of a slap in the face and sends a message that players on the team and around the NFL will view with disdain, even if Sherm is happy as a clam?

That's the only reason you whip out the you're a Ruskell card (could have done without it by the way, thanks), because I'd rather see my team and Sherm benefit from from such a deal then let Sherm either walk off the team and need to replace him, suffer a career-ender and have literally no compensation for his time here, or sign a contract that forces others to restructure and makes it imperative our draft picks and UDFA's turn into high level starters quickly so we can stay competitive?

 

[DavidSeven]

Talon, I really don't understand your point and why it's so focused on Sherman. Your analysis could apply equally to Thomas if he demanded a ludicrous contract. I guess you don't like Sherman and that's where we'll keep disagreeing.

You're assuming all the worst things are going to happen. I've already presented an argument that this can work out and that we can retain both players without crippling our cap. I don't assume our players are going to demand ridiculous contracts or suffer post-contract injury. Why would I assume those things? If it happens, it happens and you move on. However, I'm not going to assume those things for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Penman96]

We have all the main components of the LOB together next year anyway for not much money, so this debate would seem to be concerned with 2015 and after. We aren't trading Sherman in 2014 when we can get a player of his class playing for $1.5 million next year.

For 2014 we have three of the 4 main LOB guys in their final year of contract, Thomas, Sherman, and Maxwell.

Simple guess - what will be "fair" for a contract extension, and ruling out how the signing bonus / salary is spaced out over the contract terms...

Sherman = 10 million
Thomas = 8 million
Maxwell = 6 million
Chancellor = 7 million

So there is a starting secondary worth 31 million per year, and adding in the backups it's well over half of our defensive spend. Remember most of our LB's are coming up for contract in the next year or two, and we need the big boys up front.

The only solution is to ship out 2 of these 4 defensive backs and replace them by doing the exact same thing we did to get them in the first place, draft well. Or we can get these guys to sign deals that are significantly less than the numbers above, but I wouldn't think the players would go for that. Roster churn and developing fresh new players is the only way a dynasty can be done. Don't get too used to our current stable of stars, there are more than a few heading out in 2015 / 2016 if we have any hope of the Seahawks remaining a contender

 

[HawkWow]

Talon, I don't know 100% that Sherman won't price himself out of an extension. It's possible. It's just NOT my starting assumption. Anyway, if Sherman turns down a respectable offer from Seattle, then he'll play out 2014 and get franchised in 2015. That will be a calculated decision on his part and no one's feelings will get hurt as long as communication is open on both sides.

Should we win another SB before that projected (my word) departure after 15, your approach would be the right one. If we don't, and few do, all that happens is we lose Sherman when we could have probably secured a top O-lineman (my choice) for the next decade by busting a move with Sherm now.

To be clear, I am not saying I think we should trade Sherman. We all want Sherman to stay, but if it's probable we will not pay his asking price after 15, we missed a huge opportunity now while he has major trade value. I am happy I don't have to make such decisions. It won't be / shouldn't be an easy one to make. IMO.

Well, I believe you can franchise him more than once or gamble that his price comes down after 2015. We franchised Walter Jones multiple times. So, realistically, a departure after 2015 isn't a forgone conclusion, even if you don't do an extension now. But again, I honestly don't expect his number to be unreasonable anyway -- this is last resort talk.

Additionally, a team isn't giving up a top-10 pick for Sherman (which is what it would take to assure a top-flight linemen). The rookie wage-scale makes that a losing proposition for any team. Harvin's value last year was pretty comparable to Sherman's value this year. MN got a the equivalent of a pick in the mid-20s (addition of a 3rd doesn't push it up that high). Even then, people thought Seattle overspent.

LT said what I wanted to say here (though better than I ...and yes I'm developing a crush), but additionally, in going that route, we also lose the tag should we wish to use it elsewhere.

Not meaning to argue, bro (and that's kinda' how these things go), as I said in my previous post, this isn't as cut and dry as either side of this debate thinks it should be. Trust me when I say that if it's announced we've traded Sherm, I won't be high 5'ing anyone. Same goes for Lynch etc. For the first time in forever, I genuinely trust the powers that be and perhaps mindlessly, I will embrace their decision, regardless of my own opinion on the subject.

I was pissed when we drafted Wilson. So what do I know?

 

[Lady Talon]

Because you slightly overreacted to an initial opinion and aren't a GM any more then I am. There's as many ways your model wouldn't work in practice as there is mine. Emotional arguments to the tune of I hate Sherm help immensely. Maybe it's so focused on Sherman because I want to deny Maragos that stellar career that ET is keeping him from achieving.

 

[jlwaters1]

Please please please at the very least keep Baldwin. Hauschka, Thurmond, and Tate... As much as I love this whole team and I wish everyone would stay, these are my top priorities.

Why would you want Thurmond back? we got a bevy of young players, there's really no need to resign him

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Thurmond is Jacksonville bound.

 

[Mr.Hawkbrah]

trade sherm for a 1st and a 2nd or 3rd. draft benjamin, hageman/nicks/urban, the ND TE, and coleman. spend the rest on lineman/cbs and call it a day. its what i would do on madden at least.

our guys will know what kind of money sherm will want better than any of us, if he wants to stay he will, if he wants to be filthy rich then no amount of being "popular" should keep him here. sure you dont typically trade amazing players just cause they are expensive, fortunately our roster is loaded with talent which most people dont have the luxury of dealing with, you cant compare what normal teams should do with stars cause normal teams dont have this many cheap stars on their team. PC is a master at developing secondary players, no reason not to keep this in mind when considering what players are worth to us. both sides have legit arguments, although i will say when i see all this cap planned out for guys, youre completely ignoring the other 70% of our team. guys like wagner and god forbid any of our young lineman or cmike end up playing well. as well as trading sherm is also ignoring the possibility he actually does want to stay for a decent deal. we really dont have enough info, someone please email pete so we can put this to rest.

 

[Anthony!]

trade sherm for a 1st and a 2nd or 3rd. draft benjamin, hageman/nicks/urban, the ND TE, and coleman. spend the rest on lineman/cbs and call it a day. its what i would do on madden at least.

our guys will know what kind of money sherm will want better than any of us, if he wants to stay he will, if he wants to be filthy rich then no amount of being "popular" should keep him here. sure you dont typically trade amazing players just cause they are expensive, fortunately our roster is loaded with talent which most people dont have the luxury of dealing with, you cant compare what normal teams should do with stars cause normal teams dont have this many cheap stars on their team. PC is a master at developing secondary players, no reason not to keep this in mind when considering what players are worth to us. both sides have legit arguments, although i will say when i see all this cap planned out for guys, youre completely ignoring the other 70% of our team. guys like wagner and god forbid any of our young lineman or cmike end up playing well. as well as trading sherm is also ignoring the possibility he actually does want to stay for a decent deal. we really dont have enough info, someone please email pete so we can put this to rest.

That's a great idea, do that and leave the o-line the way it is, and when RW goes down for the season we, well we loose. The reality is they can keep Sherman and Et, Kam is already signed. They can also keep Bennett, and Tate and Baldwin. Simply say good buy to Rice and Miller and you get over 15 mil back. Have Clemons renegotiate and you can get another 4 back and are at 19 mil, add a few other restructures and you have about 25 mil, if the cap goes up to the 130 mil that would give us another 7 for a total of 32 mil. Now remember if we resign ET for say 8 mil it is not an 8 mil add, it is 8 mil minus what his contract was which I believe is 2 mil this year which means we only use up an extra 6 mil, so we still have 24 mil. If you do that with all the players they want to keep we can keep most of them. If the structure it right we will even have some left over. And the following year when Rw is able to be extended we actually are in great shape cap wise. However all that said we need to ensure we improve the o-line and get a big , fast WR as well, we need to protect our franchise QB and give him weapons.

The point is they can do it, it will just take some cuts of players not really producing, and some restructuring. However with all that you cannot ignore improving the o-line and getting a big, fast WR.

 

[HawkMeat]

:thirishdrinkers:

I know Pete and John don't put much stock in what the locals think, but the city of Seattle would meltdown if they shopped Sherm this off-season. It would seriously stomp out a lot of the goodwill that came from the championship. It's just not going to happen.

Just think about it. The team put Richard Sherman on stage to speak at the victory parade. He is one of two players the team makes available every week for press conferences. Do we really think they'd start shopping him two months later? Football teams are businesses like everything else. They're very conscious of what they do and the public image they craft. There is a longterm plan for Sherman in place.

People are getting too thrown off by Revis's contract numbers. It's a baloney contract and all window-dressing. He has no guarantees in it. It's like getting franchised every year but at a higher price. He'll either be cut or restructured in Year 3, if not sooner.

So you wouldn't take a 1st and two 3rds for Sherm? Just curious. We may or may not shop him, but I'm curious what people think he'd garner (and what they'd be willing to take).

No, I wouldn't at all. I think if the Vikings had a good relationship with Harvin, they would be idiots to make last year's trade with Seattle. I think the same of Sherman. You don't trade away young and elite talent for draft picks. And to be clear, I am SUPER selective with who I brand as "elite." Tate is NOT elite. Sherman, Thomas, and Harvin are elite. Trading away youg and elite players is a LOSER's mentality. Plain and simple. It's what the Mariners kept doing. It's what the Sonics did. Are we following their roadmap?

I love what Davis Hsu said on Twitter yesterday re: Sherman & Thomas:

Davis Hsu ‏@DavisHsuSeattle Feb 7
Sick of all the handwringing about paying big stars a big chunk of your salary cap- and here is why......it does NOT doom you IF (1) your big time stars perform (2) u have other good players on rookie contracts from good/high volume drafting... Paying a young ORGANIC (you drafted him) player his 2nd deal is a CELEBRATION for your org- not a damn curse!!! It is IDEAL-...Would you rather pay your big money to someone who played most of their career OUTSIDE of your org or to ORGANIC talent/leadership?...Cuz every tm paying big $$ to someone

What else are we going to spend the money on? Give dumb contracts to a bunch of mid-tier players like the Cowboys or Redskins? I hate to break it to everyone, but guys on our team who are worth "only" $4-7m are likely replaceable via draft and will net you great compensatory draft picks if they leave. There is no comparable solution for losing elite players like Sherman and Thomas.

I approve. Exactly what I wanted to say. It is imperative to keep a core or a foundation so the pieces you lose and add remain stable and working. Trading away the few elite talents and replaced with a gamble in the Draft or mediocre* talent can have really poor results. The team would lose an elite talent and then hope the gamble on the Draft pick pans out. I think it is better, and a better message to the players, you reward players you drafted and whom you put a great deal of coaching into to develop.

Signing Earl, Sherm, and Wilson is in my opinion a part of the core. I also think Avril and Bennett may or may not be a part of the core, but wow do they complement each other beautifully. An excellent pass rush is a part of the core as well as the left tackle position. Make life easy on the QB by having an elite defense.

Also I would be very sad to see a rival get our talent that the hawks developed.

 

[Mr.Hawkbrah]

trade sherm for a 1st and a 2nd or 3rd. draft benjamin, hageman/nicks/urban, the ND TE, and coleman. spend the rest on lineman/cbs and call it a day. its what i would do on madden at least.

our guys will know what kind of money sherm will want better than any of us, if he wants to stay he will, if he wants to be filthy rich then no amount of being "popular" should keep him here. sure you dont typically trade amazing players just cause they are expensive, fortunately our roster is loaded with talent which most people dont have the luxury of dealing with, you cant compare what normal teams should do with stars cause normal teams dont have this many cheap stars on their team. PC is a master at developing secondary players, no reason not to keep this in mind when considering what players are worth to us. both sides have legit arguments, although i will say when i see all this cap planned out for guys, youre completely ignoring the other 70% of our team. guys like wagner and god forbid any of our young lineman or cmike end up playing well. as well as trading sherm is also ignoring the possibility he actually does want to stay for a decent deal. we really dont have enough info, someone please email pete so we can put this to rest.

That's a great idea, do that and leave the o-line the way it is, and when RW goes down for the season we, well we loose. The reality is they can keep Sherman and Et, Kam is already signed. They can also keep Bennett, and Tate and Baldwin. Simply say good buy to Rice and Miller and you get over 15 mil back. Have Clemons renegotiate and you can get another 4 back and are at 19 mil, add a few other restructures and you have about 25 mil, if the cap goes up to the 130 mil that would give us another 7 for a total of 32 mil. Now remember if we resign ET for say 8 mil it is not an 8 mil add, it is 8 mil minus what his contract was which I believe is 2 mil this year which means we only use up an extra 6 mil, so we still have 24 mil. If you do that with all the players they want to keep we can keep most of them. If the structure it right we will even have some left over. And the following year when Rw is able to be extended we actually are in great shape cap wise. However all that said we need to ensure we improve the o-line and get a big , fast WR as well, we need to protect our franchise QB and give him weapons.

The point is they can do it, it will just take some cuts of players not really producing, and some restructuring. However with all that you cannot ignore improving the o-line and getting a big, fast WR.

FACTS:
-no one really knows who will sign for what.
-no one really knows whos willing/not willing to restructure.

Opinion:

I dont think you are any one arguing to keep sherm is wrong, the idea is quite the opposite. The only problem i have is most of you basically got this all hashed out, and its really not as simple as most of your are saying, that 20+mill will go with a blink of an eye even if we did come up with it. Were talking about asking some of these guys who already have super bowl rings to take millions of dollars less, MILLIONS of dollars less to stay here. The thing about money is, well let me give you my favorite quote "i want less money"- said no one in the history of the world.

Now dont take that as im implying i think our players will be greedy, im actually more on the side of the fence agreeing that people DO want to stay here, but I think its just as safe to assume its POSSIBLE the ball could possibly roll either way as far as contracts go.

Idk what your cheeky comment about the oline was about, me pondering the trade sherm idea gives us more money to keep our line in tact/add additions if anything. Sure you could go draft an olineman, but the reality of it it, theres multiple wrs/TE/dlineman that could fall to our spots in the first couple rounds that seem to have a lot higher ceiling than most of the olineman projected, essentially im just saying play the board how it falls, which conveniently fits positions we could be needing, assuming we make all the roster moves some of you are talking about.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Yes, there is a small possibility that we could lose ALL our FA's, there's also a small possibility that we could keep all our FA's.

But neither will happen, we will lose some, and we will keep some. Because that's how it works. We keep the one's we want, and we lose the one's we don't.

/thread

 

[dutchman063]

you sound like this packer fan i work with when they won the superbowl 3 years ago...he thought it was a simple as "next man up" when it only works that way when the stars are aligned correctly and the chemistry is just right...look at their defense now with all their young "talent"...its crap