I love Sherman the player but if NO offered pick 11 for him, the Seahawks would at least have to think about it. And not for his actions during the season but for simple economics.

His current deal runs through 2018 and I think it's a viable question pertaining to how many of the core Seahawks are going to be in line for 3rd contracts on the other side of 30. This may be the perfect time to sell high and get more draft capital in one that is pretty loaded on CB's that PC likes.

You can make the same argument for the other defensive core players. One or 2 may see 3rd contracts but not all of them will.

Sports Hernia wrote:

El Caliente wrote:I'm a Saints fan, and I enjoy visiting your board. You guys are a fun group.

Right now we are involved in discussions with New England about Malcom Butler. Apparently, they want a first round pick for him. I don't know any Saints fan willing to give up that much for Butler, its just a stupid idea to give up either our 1st round pick, or the 1st round pick that the Pats gave us for Cooks.

The reason I bring this up is for 2 reasons:
1) Sean Payton said that we were not going to trade Brandon Cooks, but we were open to listening to offers. We said the same thing about Jimmy Graham. What happened to both of those guys?
2) If the Saints think giving up a first for a cb, you need to send it to Seattle for Sherman, not to NE for Butler. What has Butler done to deserve a 1st round pick? I can tell you why Richard is worth a 1st.

With all due respect, Seattle and NO's operate differently. It's not going to happen but does NO even have the cap room for Sherman? I thought they were in cap hell, that's why they traded Cooks and Graham?

No we have about $15m in cap space available, and we will be releasing Byrd in June, so that will give us an aditional $7.5m. We are fine cap wise.

We traded Jimmy and Cooks because our offense can run fine without them, but our defense is a POS. We traded them to acquire picks to draft defensive talent...which we haven't done yet.

I would just hang on to Sherman. Hes talented and we love him in Seattle. The Legion of Boom has always had a chip on its shoulder and nothing has changed. Coach would likely suggest interlocking arms during the anthem to show togetherness. Besides, our last few drafts have failed to provide any real talent. Id rather have Sherman than some picks.

The only way this makes sense is if we're trying to stock picks to move up in the draft. If Cleveland is listening to offers for Myles Garrett I'd see what I could do.

A-Dog wrote:The only way this makes sense is if we're trying to stock picks to move up in the draft. If Cleveland is listening to offers for Myles Garrett I'd see what I could do.

Well that is not going to happen. I'm going with this doesn't make sense.

A-Dog wrote:The only way this makes sense is if we're trying to stock picks to move up in the draft. If Cleveland is listening to offers for Myles Garrett I'd see what I could do.

Why would we need Myles Garrett??

When he said the secondary isn't important it's the front seven you know he is full of shit and doesn't know how Pete built this team. First we rotate what 9 or ten guys on the D line, the loss of Earl late last year and Sherm being hurt also showed the secondary's importance.

Not to say the line isn't important but we have interchanged a lot of players there and made our secondary constant except Right Corner.

Pete Carroll to the Cleveland Browns for 2017/2018/2019 first round picks.

Everything's for sale at the right price, whether it's for sale or not.

It's in the mainstream media, although they're quoting the same sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ear ... 49da94c0dd

It would have to be a huge, blockbuster trade, like a #1 pick and a starting quality player, but I would not hang up on a team calling to inquire about Sherman. Richard is still at the top of his game, but he will be turning 29 in a few days so you can't count on his staying that way for long. As one poster said, buy low and sell high. Sherman's stock will never be higher than it is today.

If and when it happens, it will be a sad day, though.

BigMeach wrote:This is ridiculous. EVERY player is available for trade offers. If some team is going to come in and offer you a ridiculous amount of value vs. the players value of course it's looked at. Even JJ Watt would have offers heard about him if they were worth while. There is NO player in this league that cannot be traded for the right amount of value.

On the other hand, if the Seahawks are actively calling other teams to look for deals for Sherm, that is a different story altogether. But it sounds to me like this is just nonsensical reporting. You could say this about ANY player.

Yep. Sounds like a bunch of white noise made to generate clicks. But yeah, anyone is available at any time for the right price.

Sherm's "right price," I'd wager, is a couple of firsts at the very least, probably with some deal-sweeteners thrown in to boot. Probably not going to happen, but weird blockbuster trades have gone down before.

Bleacher Report and Twitter are garbage journalism. In fact, journalism in general is dead. Nothing but gossip and speculation. What happened to facts before stories? This ethic died in 2000. Sigh.

Seymour wrote:

Sports Hernia wrote:Nope, the OC with the same initials.

Ya, figured that out after the post. Well on that, I agree and disagree. I agree he is a problem and holds the team back. But disagree he is a cancer. A cancer is an infectious "sore" on the team that spreads throughout the locker room. IMO Bevell doesn't qualify for that, he is just an idiot, which in many ways means Pete is the real problem since he stands by him.

Or Pete knows he's the best option to run the offense of his team and entrusts him with that role. The supposition of these posts are as blatantly without merit as the original title of this thread.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA.

WHAT A LOAD OF SHIT.

NINEster wrote:Pete Carroll to the Cleveland Browns for 2017/2018/2019 first round picks.

As a niner fan I can see why you want him gone. The Yorks don't OWN the Niners, Pete Carroll does.

JTB wrote:I love Sherman the player but if NO offered pick 11 for him, the Seahawks would at least have to think about it. And not for his actions during the season but for simple economics.

His current deal runs through 2018 and I think it's a viable question pertaining to how many of the core Seahawks are going to be in line for 3rd contracts on the other side of 30. This may be the perfect time to sell high and get more draft capital in one that is pretty loaded on CB's that PC likes.

You can make the same argument for the other defensive core players. One or 2 may see 3rd contracts but not all of them will.

It would take more than the 11th pick to get him, I would hope.

While everyone has their price, you don't trade a pro bowl corner unless you have someone waiting in the wings, someone who can step in right away and perform.

Not only do we NOT have a decent corner waiting, we have had problems getting our OTHER cornerbacks to play at a high level.

Yes the draft is rich in cornerbacks. But not every guy successfully makes the jump from college to pro, and few are able to do it immediately.

The only plausible scenario is trading Sherman for another starting corner AND a high draft pick. Good luck with that.

Tusc2000 wrote:While everyone has their price, you don't trade a pro bowl corner unless you have someone waiting in the wings, someone who can step in right away and perform.

Not only do we NOT have a decent corner waiting, we have had problems getting our OTHER cornerbacks to play at a high level.

Yes the draft is rich in cornerbacks. But not every guy successfully makes the jump from college to pro, and few are able to do it immediately.

The only plausible scenario is trading Sherman for another starting corner AND a high draft pick. Good luck with that.

Great points!

Some people seem to be forgetting one thing. This is not just about trading Sherm for say 1 top 15 pick. It gains us $12M plus in cap to go buy some real olinemen who take too long to train, and cost us more seasons of futility. It is possible we are 1 superstar over the line to have a shot at a balanced team. If you net 1 excellent young DB, one good olineman, and some extra $$ left over to put in on other talent or extensions, this becomes much more than this guy for that guy. Patriots been doing this for years, and when done right CAN be a winning formula. If they want to go that direction, this is the year to do it at age 28 with 2 years left on contract.

Seymour wrote:Some people seem to be forgetting one thing. This is not just about trading Sherm for say 1 top 15 pick. It gains us $12M plus in cap to go buy some real olinemen who take too long to train, and cost us more seasons of futility. It is possible we are 1 superstar over the line to have a shot at a balanced team. If you net 1 excellent young DB, one good olineman, and some extra $$ left over to put in on other talent or extensions, this becomes much more than this guy for that guy. Patriots been doing this for years, and when done right CAN be a winning formula. If they want to go that direction, this is the year to do it at age 28 with 2 years left on contract.

Shermans ability to lock down opposing #1 receivers, and the right half of the field, I'd argue is more valuable to the team's success than one or two O linemen. He single handedly saves this team at least 7-10 points per game by holding his own out there

Rob gives his perspective

http://seahawksdraftblog.com/michael-lombardi-seahawks-willing-to-deal-sherman

Sports Hernia wrote:

Seymour wrote:Bob Condotta seems to think it's plausible.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seahawks/exploring-a-rumor-about-the-seahawks-being-open-to-trading-richard-sherman/

It's also plausible that I will hit the Mega-Millions 100+ million dollar jackpot tomorrow too.
Remotely likely??? Nope!

Just a couple of goobers desperately begging for clicks.....
...and some wonder why I have a pretty strong dislike for sports reporters/sports bloggers/sports writers, generally speaking.

Condota is relying heavily on Lombardi's reporting as the basis for his line of thinking. On top of everything else that would have to line up for anything to actually happen, Lombradi's reasoning is that our salary cap situation is a mess which unless I missed something I don't think is close.

Siouxhawk wrote:

Seymour wrote:

Sports Hernia wrote:Nope, the OC with the same initials.

Ya, figured that out after the post. Well on that, I agree and disagree. I agree he is a problem and holds the team back. But disagree he is a cancer. A cancer is an infectious "sore" on the team that spreads throughout the locker room. IMO Bevell doesn't qualify for that, he is just an idiot, which in many ways means Pete is the real problem since he stands by him.

Or Pete knows he's the best option to run the offense of his team and entrusts him with that role. The supposition of these posts are as blatantly without merit as the original title of this thread.

Sorry SH. I should have used the initials DB like you so this didn't show up in the search for Bevell this morning. Live and learn.

Subzero717 wrote:

Sports Hernia wrote:

Seymour wrote:Bob Condotta seems to think it's plausible.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seahawks/exploring-a-rumor-about-the-seahawks-being-open-to-trading-richard-sherman/

It's also plausible that I will hit the Mega-Millions 100+ million dollar jackpot tomorrow too.
Remotely likely??? Nope!

Just a couple of goobers desperately begging for clicks.....
...and some wonder why I have a pretty strong dislike for sports reporters/sports bloggers/sports writers, generally speaking.

Condota is relying heavily on Lombardi's reporting as the basis for his line of thinking. On top of everything else that would have to line up for anything to actually happen, Lombradi's reasoning is that our salary cap situation is a mess which unless I missed something I don't think is close.

Depends on what you call "a mess". If your budget allows no $$ left for oline and forces you into rookies, UDFA, and castaways, then some may consider that a mess. Especially if it is clearly holding your team back, and forcing the D to stay on the field and wear down.

Regardless of whether this happens (I doubt it will) this season or next, the Hawks are going to start seeing a transition of core players. Almost all of the defensive core on big contracts is coming up for 3rd deals within the next two seasons at the same time they are hitting the 30 year old mark.

I fully expect the Seahawks to try to load up on defense in this draft in preparation for that. They should.

Seymour wrote:

Subzero717 wrote:

Sports Hernia wrote:

Seymour wrote:Bob Condotta seems to think it's plausible.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seahawks/exploring-a-rumor-about-the-seahawks-being-open-to-trading-richard-sherman/

It's also plausible that I will hit the Mega-Millions 100+ million dollar jackpot tomorrow too.
Remotely likely??? Nope!

Just a couple of goobers desperately begging for clicks.....
...and some wonder why I have a pretty strong dislike for sports reporters/sports bloggers/sports writers, generally speaking.

Condota is relying heavily on Lombardi's reporting as the basis for his line of thinking. On top of everything else that would have to line up for anything to actually happen, Lombradi's reasoning is that our salary cap situation is a mess which unless I missed something I don't think is close.

Depends on what you call "a mess". If your budget allows no $$ left for oline and forces you into rookies, UDFA, and castaways, then some may consider that a mess. Especially if it is clearly holding your team back, and forcing the D to stay on the field and wear down.

Whether you or I actually believe that (and I do to some dgree) doing it after FA makes very little sense as freeing up cap space now does nothing to help the line. This FO views things differently and while I don't agree 100% after this round of FA it is making more sense to do it the way they are.

Subzero717 wrote:Whether you or I actually believe that (and I do to some dgree) doing it after FA makes very little sense as freeing up cap space now does nothing to help the line. This FO views things differently and while I don't agree 100% after this round of FA it is making more sense to do it the way they are.

Agree the timing is odd. But it could also boil down to wanting to extend Britt and or Kam, and be in position to add future younger talent. Also I agree it's a risky and bold move with no certain replacement.

Seymour wrote:

Subzero717 wrote:Whether you or I actually believe that (and I do to some dgree) doing it after FA makes very little sense as freeing up cap space now does nothing to help the line. This FO views things differently and while I don't agree 100% after this round of FA it is making more sense to do it the way they are.

Agree the timing is odd. But it could also boil down to wanting to extend Britt and or Kam, and be in position to add future younger talent. Also I agree it's a risky and bold move with no certain replacement.

I think the timing to consider here is that there was a story floated about trading Malcom Butler and someone expanded that to a "what if" about Sherman.

While I do agree that trading Sherman could benefit the club, I do not think this year is the one to do that.

Uncle Si wrote:

Seymour wrote:

Subzero717 wrote:Whether you or I actually believe that (and I do to some dgree) doing it after FA makes very little sense as freeing up cap space now does nothing to help the line. This FO views things differently and while I don't agree 100% after this round of FA it is making more sense to do it the way they are.

Agree the timing is odd. But it could also boil down to wanting to extend Britt and or Kam, and be in position to add future younger talent. Also I agree it's a risky and bold move with no certain replacement.

I think the timing to consider here is that there was a story floated about trading Malcom Butler and someone expanded that to a "what if" about Sherman.

While I do agree that trading Sherman could benefit the club, I do not think this year is the one to do that.

It may not be the best year for Seattle because of lack of depth, but it is the better year for getting max value back. Trading him with just 1 year left drops his market value considerably since he could be 1 and done with new team.

Would anyone take this?

Sherman for Joe Thomas plus a 2nd or 3rd?

We would gain about $4M of cap last I checked.

Slow news day guys?

Seymour wrote:I'm not searching that anymore, so is what it is. He said on that video interview he was up for a couple of weeks. If that doesn't do it for you, so be it.

Just FYI I think you're missing his point, which is that nobody on the outside knew about it. They spent two weeks shopping him and the first anybody heard of it was when the deal was done, which is why everybody was so shocked. The argument follows that news didn't get out that we were shopping Harvin and so news also wouldn't get out if we were actively shopping Sherman.

Seymour wrote:Some people seem to be forgetting one thing. This is not just about trading Sherm for say 1 top 15 pick. It gains us $12M plus in cap to go buy some real olinemen who take too long to train, and cost us more seasons of futility. It is possible we are 1 superstar over the line to have a shot at a balanced team. If you net 1 excellent young DB, one good olineman, and some extra $$ left over to put in on other talent or extensions, this becomes much more than this guy for that guy. Patriots been doing this for years, and when done right CAN be a winning formula. If they want to go that direction, this is the year to do it at age 28 with 2 years left on contract.

Just a FYI, Sherman turns 29 in two weeks.

Not having read all of the comments, I didn't see anyone suggest another possible motivation, if we assume that this rumor is true (admittedly a big 'if'): Has Pete had enough of Richard Sherman? Has Sherman crossed that line in the sand that every employer has? Sherman has gotten into a mini war with not just members of the press, but members of our own beat writers, people that have developed a good working relationship with our coaches and may even be considered close friends. And he's had several sideline outbursts, including an in game rant to Carroll himself.

We all remember how shocked everyone was when Percy Harvin was suddenly shipped off and were astounded at the behind the scenes stuff that caused him to fall out of favor, so we know that our coaching staff is very good at hiding their true feelings about players and what goes on behind closed doors. Is Sherman skating on thin ice with Coach Carroll?

I'm not necessarily buying what I just wrote, just saying that it's possible.

We can probably move the conversation from "is this is going to happen" to a more general discussion on if fans would be ok with it happening and how it may benefit the team.

Seymour wrote:
It may not be the best year for Seattle because of lack of depth, but it is the better year for getting max value back. Trading him with just 1 year left drops his market value considerably since he could be 1 and done with new team.

It's a good point. If you were to make a trade you would have to know his replacement was available.

The issue with relying on the draft is that anything can happen. And while I like the idea of trading for Joe Thomas, that does not fill the Seahawks needs immediately.

It's too much of a risk, unless a qualified DB plus draft picks are coming back.

AgentDib wrote:Slow news day guys?

Seymour wrote:I'm not searching that anymore, so is what it is. He said on that video interview he was up for a couple of weeks. If that doesn't do it for you, so be it.

Just FYI I think you're missing his point, which is that nobody on the outside knew about it. They spent two weeks shopping him and the first anybody heard of it was when the deal was done, which is why everybody was so shocked. The argument follows that news didn't get out that we were shopping Harvin and so news also wouldn't get out if we were actively shopping Sherman.

No I did not miss that. Shopping is shopping, the only difference is a leak in info for one and not the other. There are 31 other teams this leak could come from, limiting our ability to keep it under raps.

You replied to his assertion that nobody on the outside knew about it with an argument that we had been shopping him for two weeks. That strengthens his point rather than refuting it so I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read his point very carefully. Of course keeping things close historically doesn't preclude leaks in the future.

Uncle Si wrote:We can probably move the conversation from "is this is going to happen" to a more general discussion on if fans would be ok with it happening and how it may benefit the team.

The right price for Sherman is probably a second tier CB and a high pick; Bradley Roby from the Broncos and their #20 overall selection or so. The only reason something like that could make sense for both teams is if we feel Sherman is a problem here and needs a change of scenery, which is why the debate over whether we are shopping him is loaded. It carries the implicit assumption that we think Sherman is a problem who needs to be moved.

What I'd like is for Sherman to stop being an ass to his own teammates, coaches and the local press and get back to being the nasty ball hawking CB we knew and loved from 2-3 years ago.

But if his skills are going to continue to diminish and his mouth get louder and louder, then I'm all for trading him.

There is no place for loyalty and sentiment in pro sports. Either perform up to the ridiculous contract we gave you, or you're gone so we can spend the money elsewhere.

AgentDib wrote:You replied to his assertion that nobody on the outside knew about it with an argument that we had been shopping him for two weeks. That strengthens his point rather than refuting it so I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read his point very carefully. Of course keeping things close historically doesn't preclude leaks in the future.

Uncle Si wrote:We can probably move the conversation from "is this is going to happen" to a more general discussion on if fans would be ok with it happening and how it may benefit the team.

The right price for Sherman is probably a second tier CB and a high pick; Bradley Roby from the Broncos and their #20 overall selection or so. The only reason something like that could make sense for both teams is if we feel Sherman is a problem here and needs a change of scenery, which is why the debate over whether we are shopping him is loaded. It carries the implicit assumption that we think Sherman is a problem who needs to be moved.

Yes, and that was stated to debate this is not a valid rumor because word got out this time. I disagreed because the word was out, just not leaked to the public which is completely out of the Hawks control once 31 other teams know about it. That is the debate. Does the word getting out dismiss the validity of the rumor just standing on it's own? I say no, and what I explained is why.

Sgt. Largent wrote:What I'd like is for Sherman to stop being an ass to his own teammates, coaches and the local press and get back to being the nasty ball hawking CB we knew and loved from 2-3 years ago.

But if his skills are going to continue to diminish and his mouth get louder and louder, then I'm all for trading him.

There is no place for loyalty and sentiment in pro sports. Either perform up to the ridiculous contract we gave you, or you're gone so we can spend the money elsewhere.

Me, too. I am finding it harder and harder to defend Richard Sherman. He really made an ass out of himself when he threatened Jim Moore and compounded it by trying to revise history and pretend that he didn't say it. And as far as his talent goes, he's still very good, but no longer the best in the business. He looks pretty ordinary back there without Earl in the secondary.

The "rumor" was speculation based from the conversation regarding Butler. There was nothing to link the Seahawks except the correlation between a player like Butler and Sherman.

Sports Hernia wrote:

{bunch of silly crap about trading}

Thanks for reminding me how much I HATE fantasy football and Madden.

Well put, Broski.

It's March. People need something to talk about ...

http://www.armchairallamericans.com/sea ... d-sherman/

Seymour wrote:

Sports Hernia wrote:Nope, the OC with the same initials.

Ya, figured that out after the post. Well on that, I agree and disagree. I agree he is a problem and holds the team back. But disagree he is a cancer. A cancer is an infectious "sore" on the team that spreads throughout the locker room. IMO Bevell doesn't qualify for that, he is just an idiot, which in many ways means Pete is the real problem since he stands by him.

I hate to turn this into another one of "those" threads but agree. Every player on the team that was here for that loss knows what really happened. And they know that the person responsible hasn't been held accountable. That is why this team seems so dysfunctional.

If that's the case -- and I highly doubt it is -- those with that type of attitude would have such a loser's mentality that they wouldn't even belong on the team.

Just from my 39 years of existence I would say generally if there's smoke, there's probably fire. Sherman is a great player, maybe the best corner in the league and for sure the best we've ever had. Sherman though, is a mouth. Usually with age comes maturity, not for Sherman though. At his age, he was entirely too old to be threatening to take reporters credentials, or screaming like a high schooler on the sideline. How about "we've already seen what happens when we throw from the one"? Although Pete and company sing his praises in the media, it may just be a front to get the most from him that they can. IMO, Sherman is being shopped. Is he replaceable, probably not but the team can probably function best missing Sherm than any other LOB members.

dutchcoug wrote:Rob gives his perspective

http://seahawksdraftblog.com/michael-lombardi-seahawks-willing-to-deal-sherman

All I got from what Lombardi was saying was all speculation. Not to mention he believes our cap space is in a "mess" and that we really weren't interested in signing Sherman but had to because of the SB win. To me, if both these statements were true it would make our FO incompetent and are trying to dig themselves out of a hole. Never really liked this guy to begin with. Seems like a weasel.

Seymour wrote:

AgentDib wrote:You replied to his assertion that nobody on the outside knew about it with an argument that we had been shopping him for two weeks. That strengthens his point rather than refuting it so I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read his point very carefully. Of course keeping things close historically doesn't preclude leaks in the future.

Uncle Si wrote:We can probably move the conversation from "is this is going to happen" to a more general discussion on if fans would be ok with it happening and how it may benefit the team.

The right price for Sherman is probably a second tier CB and a high pick; Bradley Roby from the Broncos and their #20 overall selection or so. The only reason something like that could make sense for both teams is if we feel Sherman is a problem here and needs a change of scenery, which is why the debate over whether we are shopping him is loaded. It carries the implicit assumption that we think Sherman is a problem who needs to be moved.

Yes, and that was stated to debate this is not a valid rumor because word got out this time. I disagreed because the word was out, just not leaked to the public which is completely out of the Hawks control once 31 other teams know about it. That is the debate. Does the word getting out dismiss the validity of the rumor just standing on it's own? I say no, and what I explained is why.

It's not a rumor. It was a hypothetical proposed by Lombardi. You really should listen to it before jumping to any conclusions. Clayton played it several times this morning.

Subzero717 wrote:
It's not a rumor. It was a hypothetical proposed by Lombardi. You really should listen to it before jumping to any conclusions. Clayton played it several times this morning.

You should tell the Seattle Times then....
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seahawks/exploring-a-rumor-about-the-seahawks-being-open-to-trading-richard-sherman/

I would say it's not just a hypothetical when he states “I truly believe, based on what I hear around the National Football League, that the Seahawks would, in fact, for the right deal, trade Richard Sherman.’’ either. A hypothetical would be more based on "anyone is open to trade in the NFL", but he is claiming to have more information pointing that direction.

Seymour wrote:

Subzero717 wrote:
It's not a rumor. It was a hypothetical proposed by Lombardi. You really should listen to it before jumping to any conclusions. Clayton played it several times this morning.

You should tell the Seattle Times then....
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seahawks/exploring-a-rumor-about-the-seahawks-being-open-to-trading-richard-sherman/

I would say it's not just a hypothetical when he states “I truly believe, based on what I hear around the National Football League, that the Seahawks would, in fact, for the right deal, trade Richard Sherman.’’ either. A hypothetical would be more based on "anyone is open to trade in the NFL", but he is claiming to have more information pointing that direction.

And yet he doesn't come forth with any of this information (he could be more specific without outing anyone). He also claims that, “Their cap is kind of a mess and they need to fix it,” and “The corner is not really the most important player in their scheme, it’s the front seven,”. Suspect argument considering the corner is an individual position while the front seven are numerous positions.

The Times article is still solely based on what Lombardi said. Lombardi, at this point in time, it seems he was just stirring a turd to see how much he could make it stink.

seahawkfreak wrote:

Seymour wrote:

Subzero717 wrote:
It's not a rumor. It was a hypothetical proposed by Lombardi. You really should listen to it before jumping to any conclusions. Clayton played it several times this morning.

You should tell the Seattle Times then....
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seahawks/exploring-a-rumor-about-the-seahawks-being-open-to-trading-richard-sherman/

I would say it's not just a hypothetical when he states “I truly believe, based on what I hear around the National Football League, that the Seahawks would, in fact, for the right deal, trade Richard Sherman.’’ either. A hypothetical would be more based on "anyone is open to trade in the NFL", but he is claiming to have more information pointing that direction.

And yet he doesn't come forth with any of this information (he could be more specific without outing anyone). He also claims that, “Their cap is kind of a mess and they need to fix it,” and “The corner is not really the most important player in their scheme, it’s the front seven,”. Suspect argument considering the corner is an individual position while the front seven are numerous positions.

The Times article is still solely based on what Lombardi said. Lombardi, at this point in time, it seems he was just stirring a turd to see how much he could make it stink.

Why should he be, people will still doubt the credibility. The guy is a former GM, and knows where to draw the line on ratting out his source. You can either can believe the possibility, or dismiss it. I doubt he cares which way you swing.

Seems you completely missed my point that they call it a rumor, as I was told that in fact it wasn't. Silly discussion really.

ru·mor
ˈro͞omər/
noun
noun: rumour; plural noun: rumours; noun: rumor; plural noun: rumors

1.
a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth.
"they were investigating rumors of a massacre"
synonyms: gossip, hearsay, talk, tittle-tattle, speculation, word; More