What is Frank Clark’s price?

[Seymour]

There are not many circumstances where losing Clark does not materially hurt the Hawks. Trading him might help us in dealing with the cap, but it is going to hurt on-field results at a time we are just on the edge trying to even be a viable team to do anything past the wild card.

If we don't give Clark his extension, then doesn't it fly in the face of what Pete's always said? "We take care of our own guys."

Pete's always preached that if you get drafted or come here, bust your ass then we'll reward you. Especially a player like Clark that he sees as a cornerstone player and team leader.

So I'd be shocked if we trade Frank, it'd signify a total 180 on how Pete and John want to operate and pay players going forward. This would be far more of a Patriot way of you just don't give into player demands, and trust your system, scouting and schemes to get the same results.

No. Not if he is asking us to overpay well beyond where they put his max ceiling at.

What elite cornerstone player under Pete and John hasn't gotten paid for his 2nd contract? We let Tate walk, that's about all I can think of.

So yeah, I do think this would signify a more hardcore front office in dealing with contract extensions.

You completely missed my point. I'm not talking about "getting paid". I'm talking about "getting overpaid"

I'm not willing to put Clark in the elite (top 5) category yet after 1 good year. Hell if we do that then Reed is elite too.

 

[daveyoung52]

Trade his sorry ass to Buffalo or Cleveland or Saskatewan, the Seahawks made him, he ought to show a bit of loyalty, John could do a lot with number 9.

"Loyalty" :lol:
"Sorry ass"
You, young lady, are delusional and angry about something that doesn't directly affect your personal life. Carry on with your bitter day of the Lord's rest.

Sorry Breh, just wanted to state a totally overblown, reactionary reaction to the report [which now seems to carry less credence] so that nobody else would need to :roll: .
Also, do believe it was posted on Monday morning here in the U.K./Brex whatever it is, will try to behave in future :roll:
Discussion since has been very intelligent i feel.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Wow, so Tate was the exception to the rule?

That is so disappointing.

Hopefully, they learn from that and keep Clark.

 

[AgentDib]

If we don't give Clark his extension, then doesn't it fly in the face of what Pete's always said? "We take care of our own guys."

I don't see how anybody could reasonably interpret this to mean we will give any of our existing players a blank check. Pete has offered a lot of second (and third) contracts to guys where they were able to come together on an amount both felt was reasonable. If that isn't the case here then that's both sides prerogative but it isn't hypocrisy.

 

[getnasty]

Frank Clark is gonna get 18+ a year and i dont think that overpaid thats just the market for a pass rusher in his prime. Not saying we should pay that but it's the going rate.

 

[Chapow]

Frank Clark is gonna get 18+ a year and i dont think that overpaid thats just the market for a pass rusher in his prime. Not saying we should pay that but it's the going rate.

Agreed. It seems like at this point Frank Clark is considered one of the top (10-ish?) pass rushers in the league. If we want one of the top pass rushers in the league, we're going to have pay the going rate.

Good players cost a lot. If you want good players, you're going to have to pay them.

 

[truehawksfan]

As someone already posted, Ex-Patriots Edge Rusher Trey (With a “Y”) Flowers will sign with the Lions for 16-17Mil per year.

His numbers:
2016: 7 sacks
2017: 6.5 sacks
2018: 7.5 sacks

Frank Clark:
2016: 10 sacks
2017: 9 sacks
2018: 13 sacks

TFL and QB hits are very close, but you know Clark’s agent will focus on sacks and why Clark should have a much higher annual salary then Flowers.

 

[Vaclav44]

As someone already posted, Ex-Patriots Edge Rusher Trey (With a “Y”) Flowers will sign with the Lions for 16-17Mil per year.

His numbers:
2016: 7 sacks
2017: 6.5 sacks
2018: 7.5 sacks

Frank Clark:
2016: 10 sacks
2017: 9 sacks
2018: 13 sacks

TFL and QB hits are very close, but you know Clark’s agent will focus on sacks and why Clark should have a much higher annual salary then Flowers.

I was just wondering how they compared. Thanks for posting this. Seems 18-20'ish per year seems, um, reasonable to me. I throw in the 'um' just because that's a lot of dough, but then again it's not my money and all salaries are relative to revenue helped generate and all that.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

My god after seeing the CJ Mosely contract Frank Clark is gonna bankrupt this team.

 

[poly1274]

You mean Bobby Wagner?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Every team loses guys due the cap money. A lot of big decisions the next couple years for sure. Getting Frank AND Russ signed to extensions would help this team big time. Especially if they have to tag Wags.
Shoot....Russ, Wags and Clark are all tag worthy, so 2 of the 3 need to be signed to extensions just in case.
Also, what happens with KJ is going to be very interesting. Hoping he doesn't get the deal he's looking for elsewhere and stays here at a decent cap $.

 

[poly1274]

It's dumb to tie money to all 3 people.

Remove the tag off from Clark, let him go as a free agent.

Trade Bobby wagner for a 3rd and a 4th round pick 2020. He's going to cost 20$mill in 2020 .

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Trade the best Linebacker in football, in his prime? And the heart of the D???? :34853_doh:

 

[poly1274]

Trade the best Linebacker in football, in his prime? And the heart of the D???? :34853_doh:

If CJ Mosley is getting 17mill a year.

How much is the best linebacker worth? (20mill or 21mill)

RW will get paid about 33-35mill

So again you want RW (34mill) + BW (20 mill) + Frank (18mil) = 72mill.


The Patriots have won with 1 QB and 2 reliable WR's. So all we need is RW and 2 weapons. In order to win SB, all you gotta do is draft well, don't re-sign players because people are greedy and won't take a paycut.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Well, I'd argue that Russ and Wags are more important than Clark. The Hawks are no different than any other team that has guys that are due big contracts. You can't keep everyone. But trading Wags is not an option. Just my opinion.
I would MUCH rather keep Wags than Clark, IF there needed to be a choice right now.

 

[poly1274]

I kinda agree can only keep BW or Clark. But Seattle isn’t an organization that will recline their franchise tag

 

[TwistedHusky]

They should have signed Clark already.

That they didn't shows they did not learn. As pointed out, just keeping your own productive players from leaving via FA has been a challenge for this team.

I would argue the greatest most significant mistake this team ever made, and the harbinger of our fall from Super Bowl contender to a perennial wild card team....was losing Tate. First, we tried replacing him with what we thought was an upgrade in Harvin, then we compounded it by not signing Tate. Yes, I know we made another SB after we lost him, but we certainly missed him. And every year since then was just a reminder of what could have been had we kept him.

Clark seems expensive. But compared to what a 25 yr old pass rusher with double-digit sacks gets? (Productive AND in his prime??). He is going to be a bargain in hindsight.

What we will do is end up signing 1-2 other FA pass rushers to replace him, and the aggregate spend for both combined (who will not end up matching his production at all) will likely exceed what we would have paid for Clark. There is a good chance at least one of these guys will be a former 1st round pick that never lived up to his billing but that we pay an inflated price for. I firmly expect to see the DL version of Luke Joekel brought in to replace him.

The window to sign Clark for less is likely closed at this point, but whatever we pay him is likely going to be better deal than whatever we end up bringing in to replace him.

As Fade pointed out, the problem we face in spending is more overspending for FAs that not only were underwhelming if not absolute failures somewhere else - but also command decent numbers in spite of the fact they were and are garbage. These are the Joekels, Cary Williams, Harvin, etc type players. We constantly have the hubris to think it will be better here that our system will turn guys around. Then they fail, because that makes no sense...but we still owe them millions.

Just freaking pay Clark. The alternatives will cost more and produce less.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

They should have signed Clark already.

That they didn't shows they did not learn. As pointed out, just keeping your own productive players from leaving via FA has been a challenge for this team.

Bad teams chronically overspend, good teams stick to successful schemes, development and manage their cap wisely.

Our FO obviously has a value for Clark, and they're not willing to overpay him. Doesn't mean we're not flexible, but it does mean we're not going to give Clark crazy money just because he and his agent are asking for it.

And maybe they're right, maybe they know Clark can get crazy Mack money if Frank gets to free agency............but that doesn't mean we should cave in and pay it, severely hamstringing the rest of the roster. Of which has many needs btw.

 

[TwistedHusky]

We will see how much they pay the guys they bring in to replace him.

Betting they produce nowhere near that same impact but that we spend almost as much.

Tate looked like he was expensive at the time too. Remember WRs were a dime a dozen?

If this team would quit blowing money on crap FAs, a lot of the issues with not being able to keep our performing players would be solved anyway. That said, I expect a platoon of crap FAs as our solution to try to replace Clark if we lose him.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

We will see how much they pay the guys they bring in to replace him.

Betting they produce nowhere near that same impact but that we spend almost as much.

Tate looked like he was expensive at the time too. Remember WRs were a dime a dozen?

If this team would quit blowing money on crap FAs, a lot of the issues with not being able to keep our performing players would be solved anyway. That said, I expect a platoon of crap FAs as our solution to try to replace Clark if we lose him.

I agree with your initial premise, that we should pay our own, especially guys who contribute and are going into their 2nd contracts.

But until we know the particulars, it's hard to have a real opinion. But I can go by Jon and Pete's track record of being pretty damn generous with their own players, because that's been what they've preached since day one. "Come here, bust your ass, and we'll take care of you."

So IMO this is not us being cheap, it's Frank being unreasonable in his demands. Which again, good for him if he thinks he can get crazy Khalil Mack 20M+ money if he hits free agency. But it doesn't mean we want to overpay him.

Again, all speculation. So again, hard to debate this when we don't know how far apart the sides are, and where each is at.