Source: Seattle trying to trade Michael Bennett

[hawknation2018]

If Bennett is traded, am I reading it right that the team to acquire him would only be on the hook for a $1.65M cap hit for 2018 and a $6M cap hit for 2019?

$6.65M, $7M, and $8.5M if they trade him before March 18.

In 2018, Bennett would be due $1.65M in base salary, plus a $4M roster bonus due on March 18 and $1 million in per game roster bonuses. If they don't trade him before March 18, then the Seahawks would be on the hook for the $4 million.

 

[QuahHawk]

Bennett like Sherm is being shopped as a power move. I think Bennett wants to be here. It is a win win for the Hawks. we either get good value for him (>3rd round) or we show him nobody else values him like we do. He has enough of an ego to feel doubted if nobody is willing to pay up. Bennett is barely worth a 3rd but we have a chance to get more from a team who is desperate for Pass Rush. Trades for Veteran DL don't happen that often but I think this one is going to happen.

Earl on the other hand does want out. We are floating out rumors how we are working on an extension so we can drive up his value. I think it would benefit Earl if we could trade Bennett for a 3rd. It would be much easier to only take a 2nd for him in that case. I think Earl is worth a 1st and would be a huge impact for a team but it is going to take a team who have the draft capital and a willingness to spend a lot. I think a high 2nd would be fair.

 

[chris98251]

I hate fantasy football.

 

[onanygivensunday]

Bennett like Sherm is being shopped as a power move. I think Bennett wants to be here. It is a win win for the Hawks. we either get good value for him (>3rd round) or we show him nobody else values him like we do. He has enough of an ego to feel doubted if nobody is willing to pay up. Bennett is barely worth a 3rd but we have a chance to get more from a team who is desperate for Pass Rush. Trades for Veteran DL don't happen that often but I think this one is going to happen.

Earl on the other hand does want out. We are floating out rumors how we are working on an extension so we can drive up his value. I think it would benefit Earl if we could trade Bennett for a 3rd. It would be much easier to only take a 2nd for him in that case. I think Earl is worth a 1st and would be a huge impact for a team but it is going to take a team who have the draft capital and a willingness to spend a lot. I think a high 2nd would be fair.

Imo, the ceiling for trading Bennett straight up is a 4th.

We could get a 3rd but we'd have to give up a 5th in return... but that's highly doubtful. Teams are unwilling to give up a 3rd or higher pick.

 

[hawknation2018]

4th + Sheldon Richardson

OR

Around $5 million more in cap space + Michael Bennett

What would you choose?

 

[QuahHawk]

4th + Sheldon

 

[AgentDib]

It's definitely not an either/or with Richardson and Bennett. I know there are concerns about our cap but it isn't as gloomy as people think because there are a number of other contracts that we can do without.

I would much rather have Bennett than an extra $2mil of cap room this year without him. The only way that trading him for less than a third round pick makes sense is if there are locker room/leadership issues and they are trying to reset the culture with the new coaching staff coming in.

 

[hawknation2018]

Bennett is a team leader. Leadership is one of things we would be losing if they exchanged Bennett for RIchardson and a draft pick. Plus, Bennett has racked up a number of sacks every season, even during this last one while playing through multiple injuries, a traumatic event, and a lot of unjustified/mostly racist public backlash.

On the other hand, Richardson is younger. He can play the 3T on all three downs or play some 5T (throughout his career, Richardson has been a much better pass rusher when lined up on the outside). And the additional draft pick adds another young prospect to the roster.

I'm honestly torn on it. I think it will be hard to lock in Richardson before free agency starts. Without Richardson in the fold, no way they give up Bennett for anything less than very significant compensation.

 

[hawknation2018]

It's definitely not an either/or with Richardson and Bennett. I know there are concerns about our cap but it isn't as gloomy as people think because there are a number of other contracts that we can do without.

I would much rather have Bennett than an extra $2mil of cap room this year without him. The only way that trading him for less than a third round pick makes sense is if there are locker room/leadership issues and they are trying to reset the culture with the new coaching staff coming in.

It kind of is . . . there is only so much money they will want to devote to the position group. And Frank Clark is due to be paid soon. There really isn't a lot of money to work with right now.

 

[replicant]

Well we know the Texans are not in the running.

https://nypost.com/2018/03/05/texans-no ... el-agents/

 

[MontanaHawk05]

But I tend to think of things in terms of the next 3 years. What is better for Seattle in the next 3 years? In the early days John and Pete stressed the 3 year plan and not mortgaging the future for the sake of the present. We did that last year. The reason we are sitting here with a tight cap and lack of picks is because we bet on the old core to get us to the promised land. And it didn't happen.

But WHY didn't it happen? That was the question posed by my post. Especially when you consider that Earl, Sherman, Avril, Kam, and Bennett (whom I'm not as attached to, BTW) were still producing at Pro Bowl levels while they were on the field, Russell Wilson and Bobby Wagner had career seasons, and those "mortgage signings" (Sheldon for Malik, Brown for Fant, Maxwell for Sherman, McDougald for Kam) were solid additions by consensus of everyone here?

When you consider the Cable factor, the injury to Chris Carson, and the bottomed benefit-cost ratio of the Lacy, Joeckel, and Walsh signings, it becomes a lot easier to blame the season on THOSE things.

And I think a lot of people are just subconsciously refusing to attribute 2017 to those things because doing so doesn't provide a handy, comforting silver bullet to fixing the team. It was just random injury and/or bad personnel decisions. I cannot believe that people watched the historically bad running game Seattle fielded last year and yet keep jumping to blame an aging defense that was playing statistically well.

So, when you talk about not mortgaging the future, I agree with you. But we have to correctly identify what went wrong in the present in order to keep from jettisoning elements that were helping rather than harming. I hardly think that all of Earl, Sherm, Kam, Avril, and Bennett will still be Seahawks in 2018. In fact, I think only two of them will be. But I also think we're going to be finding out the hard way just how good a thing we had going, even with them struggling to stay healthy.

I agree with you on the root cause of the problems last year. But, I don't think those issues get fixed THIS season and that is what I have a problem with. I am not willing to say Chris Carson is the future of our running game, by comparison, Rawls's rookie season was far more impressive and how has he turned out? I simply didn't see enough of him before losing him to injury, an injury really similar to what happened to Rawls.

I don't think that Solari is going to come in and fix our line and who's to say we get a consistent trustworthy kicker this offseason? We don't have the cap space or draft capital to fix these problems this season without some major luck playing a factor. You simply have to account for some manner of trial and error. If we don't fix it this season, then you have wasted a year of value from Bennett and Earl. I think Seattle can right the ship in 2-3 years, but where does that put us with Earl and Bennett. Earl will be 31-2 and Bennett will be 34-5 and there is a monster extension for Earl between then and now.

So again, I am not against you on what caused the problems last year. I don't think Earl is washed up and I don't think Bennett is washed up. But where will they be in two to three years?

I think it comes down to two questions:

Do you think we fix all the things that went wrong last year, this year?

Do you think Bennett and Earl will have the same level of value in two to three years as they do now?

For me the answer is no to both and it's why I am looking to trade them.

Bennett is still geting 8.5 sacks at age 32. I'm not closed to trading him; in fact, I think it happens. But he has stayed tough for a long time. He's a Dwight Freeney.

Earl I have more confidence in to stay healthy down the road. 80% Earl is still better than half the safeties in this league.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

We were 10-5-1, got spanked by the Falcons and went 9-7 last year and didn't make the playoffs. For the expectations and talent level on this roster? That's not very good.

That's pretty reductive. You can easily make the case that the offense was far more responsible than the defense.

 

[mistaowen]

It doesn't make sense to trade a guy who is cap friendly this year and still playing at a high level for a late round pick who likely won't even see the field. Plantar fasciitis is no joke, I'm surprised he was able to do as well as his did with that lingering injury all season. Fully healed with the other DL coming along should mean more meaningful snaps and less wear and tear.

If Falcons want to offer a 2nd to start recouping on this years draft, maybe they should entertain the idea. But a late round practice squad pick for a solid contributor who isn't a cap issue? Pass.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

We were 10-5-1, got spanked by the Falcons and went 9-7 last year and didn't make the playoffs. For the expectations and talent level on this roster? That's not very good.

That's pretty reductive. You can easily make the case that the offense was far more responsible than the defense.

For the third time now, I'm basing my opinion on the team as a whole, and that would include the offense.

If you got excited after a 10-5-1 record in 2016 and getting destroyed by the Falcons in the playoffs, then I'd venture to say you're in the vast minority. Not.very.good.

 

[adeltaY]

What's concerning is that the coaches still had Mike B's snap count so high when they knew he was injured for most of the year. If they couldn't trust the depth to take over some of those snaps, I'm not sure what the product on the field is going to look like without him. I think Cliff going down early definitely impacted that, but if we're losing both Avril and Bennett, we pretty much have to sign or draft a good player to replace them. That's without taking into account re-signing or letting Sheldon walk.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

We were 10-5-1, got spanked by the Falcons and went 9-7 last year and didn't make the playoffs. For the expectations and talent level on this roster? That's not very good.

That's pretty reductive. You can easily make the case that the offense was far more responsible than the defense.

For the third time now, I'm basing my opinion on the team as a whole, and that would include the offense.

If you got excited after a 10-5-1 record in 2016 and getting destroyed by the Falcons in the playoffs, then I'd venture to say you're in the vast minority. Not.very.good.

You're basing your opinion on the team as a whole, but you are not placing the solution there. You're placing the solution on the defense.

 

[jammerhawk]

I hear you, but I don’t think that’s the question.

Isn’t the question “does the Front Office blow it up now with a few solid remaining parts, or wait until next season with fewer?”

If it is only for draft picks then I say no way, but the problems will still linger of an aging core group, cap problems, and an increasing number of missing pieces.

Trading Bennett won’t pay immediate dividends or for that matter possibly no dividends at all, and the D will be weaker w/o him, until they adjust. However, doing nothing is not usual for this front office. If the team can get compensation close to what they want for him he will be gone. I hope it is not to Atlanta or within the Conference.