How much of a paycut would you take to stay in Seattle?

I'm not talking about hometown discounts, per se, more about how much would you give up to play for a winner and a good environment? Let's say you're a good football player about to enter free agency. You'll have plenty of suitors. How much extra would, say, Oakland or Cleveland have to pay you to entice you to go there?

Oakland or Cleveland would have to pay me 125% more to go on a three year contract. I'd stay in Seattle for 25% less than the best market offer not from Oakland or Cleveland.

I don't know about a "paycut" or "discount" to play in Seattle, but no amount of money could entice me to live in Oakland or Cleveland.

Depends where I am in my career. If I'm trying to make a name for myself, I got to Seattle or another winner for whatever they'll offer me (as long as I have a chance to play.) If I'm a big name who's looking at likely my last big paycheck, I'm not taking a discount.

I actually don't like thinking of it as a discount either, but McGruff said, it would take an awful lot extra to get me to play in certain places. I don't know how big of a deal it would be to play in Seattle versus a middle of the road team but I imagine going to a basement dweller would be tough.

10-15% max. Football is a dangerous sport, so I'm not taking a huge discount. (Depends on the team that is offering me and the state they are in)

If I am finishing my rookie contract you already had me at a discount so none. If I was ending a decent 2nd contract then I would look at staying a winner and get more guaranteed for a longer period of time to make it cap friendly and knowing I won't see the end of that contract. so maybe leave 10 mil over three or 12 over 4 on the table.

Once you factor in the additional pay for playoff games and the Super Bowl, plus a higher profile leading to better endorsement deals, it would take a fair chunk of change to make Oakland or Cleveland attractive.

And doesn't Washington not have state income tax?

How much money is enough?, how extravagant a lifestyle do you foresee yourself living?, how many other people, Family, or children in your plans, and how much do all these questions play into your Contractual decision$ ?
For quite a while, players have been counseled on taking care of their bankroll, because it won't support an extravagant lifestyle for a long period of time.
Having successfully reached retirement with my health somewhat intact, I have to keep myself in check and not spend beyond my mean$, and that's just not as easy, or open and shut as it sounds.
I would take a home town discount, and adjust my lifestyle to fit, but I wouldn't take a ridiculous pay cut to see someone else on the team skim the cream off the top.

Timmahawk":1fe3uvro said:

10-15% max. Football is a dangerous sport, so I'm not taking a huge discount. (Depends on the team that is offering me and the state they are in)

Click to expand...

This is generally used as the "home town discount" percentage for most pro contracts.

Another big factor that a lot of people forget about is state income tax. It's a big reason why athletes like Lebron choose Florida over NY or LA. 9% isn't a big deal if you only make 35k a year, but it sure as hell's a big deal if you make 20 million a year.

I'm from Seattle, so I'd take the 10-15% less to stay here rather than move somewhere my wife and family might not be happy.

Given my build, my more innate skills, my temperament, and the use of a time machine to go back and rededicate every iota of my free time to becoming the best football player I could be, the only positions I imagine I could find any degree of success in are QB, TE, and SS. This current Seahawks team would only be looking to sign me as an FA if I were a TE and I would absolutely take a slight pay cut to play TE here over most other teams. Other than the rotational players on the defensive line, TE is perhaps the one position we have that is both simpler to crack and most in need of the niche player looking to make a name for himself through ruthless efficiency. This opportunity would offer a potential reward for me far exceeding what's offered by a superior paycheck.

SacHawk2.0":24gv32nf said:

Oakland or Cleveland would have to pay me 125% more to go on a three year contract. I'd stay in Seattle for 25% less than the best market offer not from Oakland or Cleveland.

Click to expand...

This sounds about right to me.

Imagine that:

You grow up a Seahawks fan.

You have immense talent at football.

You are drafted in the NFL. But not by the Seahawks. Let's pick a team at random. The Atlanta Falcons draft you.

You are a pending free agent. You have offers from the Browns, the Packers, the Dolphins, the Broncos, whatever. Random teams. Some good, some not so good. Do you give Atlanta a substantial hometown discount just because they were the team that drafted you?

Now, if it were the Seahawks that drafted you and you grew up a Seahawks fan, that would be different. But a rookie contract in the NFL is the sports equivalent of indentured servitude. It is a period of work you must complete to reach the thing you really want (free agency and a huge payday). Really, it shouldn't be that surprising that "hometown" discounts tend to be fairly uncommon, and often times negligible. Look at the players Seattle signed back. Almost all of them were signed back for top dollar, or even a little above that.

In the scenario suggested by the OP, I would probably take a huge discount to stay in Seattle, but only because I'm a diehard, and because I don't really understand the appeal of having 40 million in the bank instead of 30 million. You can live a pretty good life with 2 million in the bank.

Difference in state income tax. That's about it. Otherwise it's the highest bidder.

I'd much rather play for the Fins or Chargers.

I'm with kearly, I never understood why fans expect athletes with no childhood ties to Seattle to offer a "hometown discount." Why do we even use that term?

Assuming you grew up near Seattle and were drafted by Baltimore or New England (good franchises, good coaches), would you turn away significantly better offers? What if Seattle offered you a better deal? What if you could live in Miami or San Diego as a young athlete in his 20s while making a boatload of money? Forget Cleveland or Oakland, there are still plenty of other teams with decent outlooks located in decent cities. I see no reason for a kid from LA or Virginia to offer us a discount simply because we drafted the right to underpay him for three years.

None. Give me the most dollars. offered a raise in the tune of million or so I'm out. :mrgreen:

Depends on where I was in my career. Do I got a ring already? How much the other place is offering, what's my star status going to be in that other city? do I want to live in that other city vs Seattle? etc.

The way I see it, the only reason I'd give a hometown discount is


1) Hometown is a much cooler city than the other place
2) I don't got a ring already and hometown offers me a much better shot at getting a ring vs the other team
3) I'm already set for life money-wise, and I'm okay with losing that potential $1-3M staying where I'm at and that I'll make it up with either these two possibilities: Getting a ring and/or bigger market and therefore I can make up some of that lost salary with endorsements, advertisements and etc.

And since you're mentioning Oakland, I assume you're talking Beast Mode.

If I were him, Oakland is not paying me EXTRA to play there. Seattle is paying me EXTRA to keep me here. I'd rather live in my home town, be an even bigger star amongst the people I actually care about. I don't need to be on a winning team because I already got a ring, and law of averages says Seattle is NOT making it back to a third straight SB. Not to mention just cus you play for Oakland, doesn't mean you have to live in Oakland (well for Beast this is probably cool with him). But if I was making millionaire bucks, I'd rather live in the Bay Area vs Seattle regardless. But I don't and for my income, life is much better in this area than in the bay.

Oakland is a hole... but if you play in Oakland, that certainly doesn't mean you need to live there. SF is one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.

lukerguy":1vyjvvcq said:

Oakland is a hole... but if you play in Oakland, that certainly doesn't mean you need to live there. SF is one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.

Click to expand...

They'd have to offer me a hell of a lot to pay an extra 13% for the "privilege" of living and working in California. I lived in CA, and made good money there. And paid an obscene amount of state income tax. When work got bad and I left, know what really chapped my ass ? Not moving away from the beach. It wasn't the lack of good weather (we're talking 75 degrees consistently throughout the year). Not making less money. It was thinking back to paying over 30k in state income taxes in one year. Not happy thoughts.

It's hard for us to really empathize with the athletes, but if it were me, I'd be going where the best place for my family to live was, where I had the best chance to compete, followed by the best coaching staff and team mates. These are guys you work and damn near live with, if they're a bunch of a**holes then the money isn't worth it.

We're all assuming by taking a "home town discount" you're a desired athlete in the top 10% of your position, right ? So, I'm making millions anyways. First, I keep as much as I can out of the government's hands (which is what most wealthy people try to do for starters). So, take the state income tax, add about 10 %, factor in the other stuff, and you about have it.

Unless you're a total jack wagon, a couple of million a year for 4-5 years is all you should need for you, your immediate family, setting up your kids, and helping out some extended family. Living better than most of us do.