Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Lynch asks for release

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Re: Lynch asks for release
Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:06 pm
  • I doubt this goes anywhere at all with ML.

    He seems to really enjoy retirement and there are no reports he has been putting in the time and effort to get back into football shape for a return.

    If this becomes the case I do think the Raiders may very well give up a later 5th to 7th round pick to bring him onto their team. I don't think he would force the issue with the team, as there was no real negative feelings when he made the decision to retire the first time. Also, there are several news reports that do imply possible player tampering by the Raiders that the Hawks could question with the league. Why would ML or the Raiders want to go down that path just to save a mid to late round draft pick? Makes no sense to me at all.

    At least that is what I hope happens for all concerned.
    kf3339
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2322
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:52 pm


Re: Lynch asks for release
Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:25 pm

Re: Lynch asks for release
Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:00 pm
  • Thomas Paine: To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead
    User avatar
    Seafan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5677
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:30 pm
    Location: Helotes, TX


Re: Lynch asks for release
Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:11 pm
  • If the raiders have been talking to him, and he's still under contract, isn't that tampering?
    CPHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3247
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:49 pm


Re: Lynch asks for release
Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:43 pm
  • Yes sir.
    Just The Tip......

    I'm a 6'5, 255lb ginger. You can't hurt me, I have no soul.
    User avatar
    TAB420
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 531
    Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:11 pm


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:16 am
  • Just watched Michael Robinson's video on his twitter. Say's he knows the answer but cant say right now, he then goes on to say that "IF" marshawn lynch was in shape and "IF" he was ready to go why would Seattle let him go? maybe lynch comes back and stays in seattle?
    User avatar
    IrishNW
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 469
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:55 pm


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 5:45 am
  • IrishNW wrote:Just watched Michael Robinson's video on his twitter. Say's he knows the answer but cant say right now, he then goes on to say that "IF" marshawn lynch was in shape and "IF" he was ready to go why would Seattle let him go? maybe lynch comes back and stays in seattle?


    I think the two reasons Seattle would let him go are as follows:

    (1) After factoring in their thee signings of the last 48 hours and the money allocated to the draft pool the Seahawks are probably about 3 million under the cap. Ever team likes to start the year with at least a million or two of cap room so that they can replenish their roster on minimum deals when injuries happen during the season.

    So, to keep him, purely from a monetary perspective, the Hawks are going to have to restructure about 7-8 million dollars for other players out of the cap this year and into future year cap hits. Would they do this? Why would do this, particularly given reason #2:

    (2) With Lacy, Rawls, and Prosise what are they going to do with Marshawn Lynch on their team? He'll be the the second highest paid back in the NFL and part of a four man platoon, or Lacy, Rawls, and Prosise will just spend the year on the bench?

    Assuming Bell signs long-term and is off his franchise tag and Lynch is back with the Seahawks on his current contract, he'll definitely be the highest paid RB in the NFL next year. It's just not gonna happen. I'm not being facetious or a jerk: I just don't think JS and PC are that crazy or stupid.


    It just doesn't make any sense.
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4160
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:23 am
  • I think Carroll planted this story to get everyone off the "we're trading Sherm trail."
    User avatar
    Subzero717
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 10014
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:25 am
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    IrishNW wrote:Just watched Michael Robinson's video on his twitter. Say's he knows the answer but cant say right now, he then goes on to say that "IF" marshawn lynch was in shape and "IF" he was ready to go why would Seattle let him go? maybe lynch comes back and stays in seattle?


    I think the two reasons Seattle would let him go are as follows:

    (1) After factoring in their thee signings of the last 48 hours and the money allocated to the draft pool the Seahawks are probably about 3 million under the cap. Ever team likes to start the year with at least a million or two of cap room so that they can replenish their roster on minimum deals when injuries happen during the season.

    So, to keep him, purely from a monetary perspective, the Hawks are going to have to restructure about 7-8 million dollars for other players out of the cap this year and into future year cap hits. Would they do this? Why would do this, particularly given reason #2:

    (2) With Lacy, Rawls, and Prosise what are they going to do with Marshawn Lynch on their team? He'll be the the second highest paid back in the NFL and part of a four man platoon, or Lacy, Rawls, and Prosise will just spend the year on the bench?

    Assuming Bell signs long-term and is off his franchise tag and Lynch is back with the Seahawks on his current contract, he'll definitely be the highest paid RB in the NFL next year. It's just not gonna happen. I'm not being facetious or a jerk: I just don't think JS and PC are that crazy or stupid.


    It just doesn't make any sense.


    Or, more simply I think, they don't want Lynch, at really any cost. They clearly were not pursuing him prior to this story, nor had Lynch made any intimations he wanted a return.

    If lynch does want to play I imagine it would only be for the Raiders and I'm sure it won't be for a heavy salary. Seattle may try and squeeze a draft pick (late round) out of it but doubt they try too hard.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 12070
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:12 am
  • ^^^ Yep. 100% agreed. I had tried the short and sweet version before but it didn't really seem to be convincing people, so I figured I'd spell out all the details to make the case.

    So, with two paragraphs of details I have the same conclusion you do: They don't want Lynch. Full stop. You're absolutely spot on IMO. :2thumbs:
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4160
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:45 am
  • This is a non story.
    Procedure for ML if he wants to unretire is to first request to the NFL his reinstatement. If approved, his $9M cap charge would then apply to Seattle's cap if he comes back to the Seahawks.
    Business sense tells me that the $9M cap hit would be too expensive for a team to trade for, forcing Seattle to pay him or release him. In that case they would release him.
    So, long story short, it doesn't matter what the Seahawks say if ML wants to come back and play for Oakland. Just apply for reinstatement which will force Seattle for release him which would make ML a UFA, able to sign with anyone he accepts.
    User avatar
    LudwigsDrummer
    US Navy Air VP 56 `74-`78
     
    Posts: 1681
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:44 pm
    Location: Smokey Point


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:44 am
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    fridayfrenzy wrote:If Seattle wants to recoup that signing bonus money it basically means Marshawn would be playing for free this year with the Raiders (i.e. pay back Seahawks for portion of signing bonus and then make $3-5 million with Raiders).


    Nah, it doesn't work that way. If he applies for reinstatement there is no signing bonus money to recoup as he's still under contract with the Seahawks.

    Lynch then doesn't "owe" the Hawks money, they owe HIM 9 million dollars this year. Lynch would either (1) make 9 million dollars playing for the Seahawks this year or (2) make whatever the Raiders pay him if the Seahawks decide to cut him rather than pay him another 9 million.


    I guess we will have to disagree. There is a business side of things related to the signing bonus they let Marshawn walk away with.

    I believe there are two options for the Seahawks FO if Marshawn does apply for reinstatement.

    Option 1) Seahawks make cap room for him by restructuring other players and keep him. That is the leverage Seattle has if Marshawn only wants to come back if he gets to play for Oakland.

    Option 2) Seahawks ask Marshawn to pay back part of his signing bonus in some manner and then will release or trade him for peanuts. Unless Marshawn can make really good money with a new team this will be a deterrent to coming back.
    User avatar
    fridayfrenzy
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 325
    Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:33 pm


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:54 am
  • fridayfrenzy wrote:I guess we will have to disagree. There is a business side of things related to the signing bonus they let Marshawn walk away with.

    I believe there are two options for the Seahawks FO if Marshawn does apply for reinstatement.

    Option 1) Seahawks make cap room for him by restructuring other players and keep him. That is the leverage Seattle has if Marshawn only wants to come back if he gets to play for Oakland.

    Option 2) Seahawks ask Marshawn to pay back part of his signing bonus in some manner and then will release or trade him for peanuts. Unless Marshawn can make really good money with a new team this will be a deterrent to coming back.


    I'm understanding what you're saying, but the problem is with #2, and there really isn't anything to disagree about.

    Marshawn technically owes the Seahawks 2.5 million in signing bonus because he retired before the contract year in which that 2.5 million from his signing bonus was assigned.

    #2 doesn't work because once Marshawn is reinstated he is on the Seahawks on the contract that he had -- he no longer owes them the 2.5 million from last year because while retired his contract didn't toll. That 2.5 million he already has is now the signing bonus for this year, plus the 9 million in base salary in his contract that they would then owe him for this year.

    There's not really anything to disagree about. If the Seahawks asked him to now "repay" his signing bonus all he would have to do is get reinstated and then he doesn't owe them the signing bonus anymore because he is fulfilling the year of play for which it was assigned.

    The only way for Lynch to owe the Seahawks the signing bonus is if he stays retired. Once he's reinstated, it's legally his regardless of if the Seahawks agree to pay him his 9 million dollar base salary this year or cut him (at which point it's still legally his -- when you decide to cut a player you don't get their signing bonus back).
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4160
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:59 am
  • Spin, spin right round Popeye..... we never cut him sir. Rethink your argument is my advice. If Marshawn wants to play again Seattle will get the money owed to them and a draft pick at least. If the NFL gets involved because of the obvious tampering... well it just might get serious.
    Last edited by Josea16 on Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
    Josea16
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 649
    Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:27 am


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:00 am
  • Josea16 wrote:Spin, spin right round Popeye..... we never cut him sir. Rethink your argument is my advice.


    read his post a little closer.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 12070
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:10 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    Josea16 wrote:Spin, spin right round Popeye..... we never cut him sir. Rethink your argument is my advice.


    read his post a little closer.

    You actually think he going to be reinstated? Yeah right. This story is totally crap. You know it, I know it, and Popeye especially knows it..... keep spinning, you do it well Popeye.
    Josea16
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 649
    Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:27 am


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:17 am
  • Josea16 wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Josea16 wrote:Spin, spin right round Popeye..... we never cut him sir. Rethink your argument is my advice.


    read his post a little closer.

    You actually think he going to be reinstated? Yeah right. This story is totally crap. You know it, I know it, and Popeye especially knows it..... keep spinning, you do it well Popeye.


    Yes. And I'm pretty sure popeye mentions the very point you just made (albeit with different qualifiers). Maybe I'm missing something but it appears we all agree here, for the most part.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 12070
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:29 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    Josea16 wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Josea16 wrote:Spin, spin right round Popeye..... we never cut him sir. Rethink your argument is my advice.


    read his post a little closer.

    You actually think he going to be reinstated? Yeah right. This story is totally crap. You know it, I know it, and Popeye especially knows it..... keep spinning, you do it well Popeye.


    Yes. And I'm pretty sure popeye mentions the very point you just made (albeit with different qualifiers). Maybe I'm missing something but it appears we all agree here, for the most part.

    Excellent. I may not be eloquent and able to type beautiful paragraph long posts but it's nice to know I'm not crazy or stupid and can read other people's posts and understand the actual point they are trying to prove with them. :irishdrinkers:
    Josea16
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 649
    Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:27 am


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:33 am
  • Popeyejones wrote:I'm understanding what you're saying, but the problem is with #2, and there really isn't anything to disagree about.

    Marshawn technically owes the Seahawks 2.5 million in signing bonus because he retired before the contract year in which that 2.5 million from his signing bonus was assigned.

    #2 doesn't work because once Marshawn is reinstated he is on the Seahawks on the contract that he had -- he no longer owes them the 2.5 million from last year because while retired his contract didn't toll. That 2.5 million he already has is now the signing bonus for this year, plus the 9 million in base salary in his contract that they would then owe him for this year.

    There's not really anything to disagree about. If the Seahawks asked him to now "repay" his signing bonus all he would have to do is get reinstated and then he doesn't owe them the signing bonus anymore because he is fulfilling the year of play for which it was assigned.

    The only way for Lynch to owe the Seahawks the signing bonus is if he stays retired. Once he's reinstated, it's legally his regardless of if the Seahawks agree to pay him his 9 million dollar base salary this year or cut him (at which point it's still legally his -- when you decide to cut a player you don't get their signing bonus back).


    Do you just make stuff up to go with your arguments or have you actually read somewhere something that made you think this???

    The Seahawks have retained Lynch’s contract rights while he’s been on their reserve/retired list through 2017 under the contract extension he signed before the 2015 season. That deal included a $7.5 signing bonus. Lynch would be, according to letter of the league’s collective bargaining agreement, subject to paying back the 2016 proration on that signing bonus, a sum of $2.5 million for the season he was “retired.”

    Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/nf ... rylink=cpy
    User avatar
    DJrmb
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 887
    Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:53 pm


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:00 am
  • DJrmb wrote:Do you just make stuff up to go with your arguments or have you actually read somewhere something that made you think this???

    The Seahawks have retained Lynch’s contract rights while he’s been on their reserve/retired list through 2017 under the contract extension he signed before the 2015 season. That deal included a $7.5 signing bonus. Lynch would be, according to letter of the league’s collective bargaining agreement, subject to paying back the 2016 proration on that signing bonus, a sum of $2.5 million for the season he was “retired.”

    Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/nf ... rylink=cpy


    Sorry if I wasn't clear, but as far as I understand it you're reading that incorrectly.

    For the sake of argument and to keep things clean let's just pretend that Lynch applies for and gets reinstated.

    2016: Lynch was retired. 2.5 million of his signing bonus from his last deal was allocated to the 2016 season. Teams usually let their older and star players keep that bonus money when they retire, but right now Lynch technically owes the Seahawks 2.5 million. We totally absolutely agree on that. It's also what your quoted source above is saying.

    2017: Lynch applies for and gets reinstatement. Because he was retired the 2016 year of his contract did not accrue, so the 2016 year applies to this year, now that he's off the retired list. For contract purposes the year of retirement just didn't happen -- the Hawks still own his rights under the same terms as they would have if he had not been retired in 2016. The NFL does this so that players can't just retire to avoid a contract and then come back from retirement "out" from that contract.

    So, once Lynch gets reinstated the Seahawks owe him (1) his base salary from what would have been his 2016 year had he not been retired (which I think, but could be wrong, is 9 million) and (2) the pro-rated amount of his signing bonus for the 2016 year (the 2.5 million which they already paid him).

    They can only hold the signing bonus over his head if he doesn't want to be reinstated

    If he does want to be reinstated he's back on the Seahawks with what would have been his 2016 contract had he not reitred: that signing bonus is fully his and they owe him the base salary from his contract.


    FWIW I know about this because a similar thing happened last year with Bam Davis but in reverse (Davis retired two years ago at the age of 25 and Baalke made him pay back his signing bonus. Then when Davis briefly unretired last summer Baalke tried to not give him that non-accrued year of signing bonus back, which is why Davis hates him. It never got to the NFLPA because Davis retired again too quickly but Baalke would have 100% lost and he knew it. He was just being a jerk (or maybe suspected that Davis was going to grab the bonus money and then retire again and make Baalke chase him for it, which coulda happend, because Davis is a nut.)
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4160
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:17 am
  • OTC goes into some detail on the money/process - http://overthecap.com/thoughts-marshawn ... retirement

    As for the prorated SB money and their cap, they carried the accelerated $ 5 M (for 2017/2018) against 2016 as dead money. CBA wise, I believe they could go after the money from him if he unretires.
    GO HAWKS!
    User avatar
    JTB
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 703
    Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:20 am
    Location: Covington, WA


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:24 am
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    DJrmb wrote:Do you just make stuff up to go with your arguments or have you actually read somewhere something that made you think this???

    The Seahawks have retained Lynch’s contract rights while he’s been on their reserve/retired list through 2017 under the contract extension he signed before the 2015 season. That deal included a $7.5 signing bonus. Lynch would be, according to letter of the league’s collective bargaining agreement, subject to paying back the 2016 proration on that signing bonus, a sum of $2.5 million for the season he was “retired.”

    Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/nf ... rylink=cpy


    Sorry if I wasn't clear, but as far as I understand it you're reading that incorrectly.

    For the sake of argument and to keep things clean let's just pretend that Lynch applies for and gets reinstated.

    2016: Lynch was retired. 2.5 million of his signing bonus from his last deal was allocated to the 2016 season. Teams usually let their older and star players keep that bonus money when they retire, but right now Lynch technically owes the Seahawks 2.5 million. We totally absolutely agree on that. It's also what your quoted source above is saying.

    2017: Lynch applies for and gets reinstatement. Because he was retired the 2016 year of his contract did not accrue, so the 2016 year applies to this year, now that he's off the retired list. For contract purposes the year of retirement just didn't happen -- the Hawks still own his rights under the same terms as they would have if he had not been retired in 2016. The NFL does this so that players can't just retire to avoid a contract and then come back from retirement "out" from that contract.

    So, once Lynch gets reinstated the Seahawks owe him (1) his base salary from what would have been his 2016 year had he not been retired (which I think, but could be wrong, is 9 million) and (2) the pro-rated amount of his signing bonus for the 2016 year (the 2.5 million which they already paid him).

    They can only hold the signing bonus over his head if he doesn't want to be reinstated

    If he does want to be reinstated he's back on the Seahawks with what would have been his 2016 contract had he not reitred: that signing bonus is fully his and they owe him the base salary from his contract.


    FWIW I know about this because a similar thing happened last year with Bam Davis but in reverse (Davis retired two years ago at the age of 25 and Baalke made him pay back his signing bonus. Then when Davis briefly unretired last summer Baalke tried to not give him that non-accrued year of signing bonus back, which is why Davis hates him. It never got to the NFLPA because Davis retired again too quickly but Baalke would have 100% lost and he knew it. He was just being a jerk (or maybe suspected that Davis was going to grab the bonus money and then retire again and make Baalke chase him for it, which coulda happend, because Davis is a nut.)


    That's not my understanding of how retirement and reinstatement works in the new CBA. I know it was like that in the old CBA but I believe that changes were made. I'll have to look more into that aspect when I am back home. So if what you're saying is correct and the deal freezes then the Seahawks would have Lynch under contract for 2 more seasons. Is that correct? I thought that part was changed to where the deal continues to run for the length of the contract otherwise a player like Davis who you mentioned could come out of retirement when he's 55 to collect more money from a team. There has to be some measure against that I would think.
    User avatar
    DJrmb
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 887
    Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:53 pm


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:29 am
  • DJrmb wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:
    DJrmb wrote:Do you just make stuff up to go with your arguments or have you actually read somewhere something that made you think this???

    The Seahawks have retained Lynch’s contract rights while he’s been on their reserve/retired list through 2017 under the contract extension he signed before the 2015 season. That deal included a $7.5 signing bonus. Lynch would be, according to letter of the league’s collective bargaining agreement, subject to paying back the 2016 proration on that signing bonus, a sum of $2.5 million for the season he was “retired.”

    Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/nf ... rylink=cpy


    Sorry if I wasn't clear, but as far as I understand it you're reading that incorrectly.

    For the sake of argument and to keep things clean let's just pretend that Lynch applies for and gets reinstated.

    2016: Lynch was retired. 2.5 million of his signing bonus from his last deal was allocated to the 2016 season. Teams usually let their older and star players keep that bonus money when they retire, but right now Lynch technically owes the Seahawks 2.5 million. We totally absolutely agree on that. It's also what your quoted source above is saying.

    2017: Lynch applies for and gets reinstatement. Because he was retired the 2016 year of his contract did not accrue, so the 2016 year applies to this year, now that he's off the retired list. For contract purposes the year of retirement just didn't happen -- the Hawks still own his rights under the same terms as they would have if he had not been retired in 2016. The NFL does this so that players can't just retire to avoid a contract and then come back from retirement "out" from that contract.

    So, once Lynch gets reinstated the Seahawks owe him (1) his base salary from what would have been his 2016 year had he not been retired (which I think, but could be wrong, is 9 million) and (2) the pro-rated amount of his signing bonus for the 2016 year (the 2.5 million which they already paid him).

    They can only hold the signing bonus over his head if he doesn't want to be reinstated

    If he does want to be reinstated he's back on the Seahawks with what would have been his 2016 contract had he not reitred: that signing bonus is fully his and they owe him the base salary from his contract.


    FWIW I know about this because a similar thing happened last year with Bam Davis but in reverse (Davis retired two years ago at the age of 25 and Baalke made him pay back his signing bonus. Then when Davis briefly unretired last summer Baalke tried to not give him that non-accrued year of signing bonus back, which is why Davis hates him. It never got to the NFLPA because Davis retired again too quickly but Baalke would have 100% lost and he knew it. He was just being a jerk (or maybe suspected that Davis was going to grab the bonus money and then retire again and make Baalke chase him for it, which coulda happend, because Davis is a nut.)


    That's not my understanding of how retirement and reinstatement works in the new CBA. I know it was like that in the old CBA but I believe that changes were made. I'll have to look more into that aspect when I am back home. So if what you're saying is correct and the deal freezes then the Seahawks would have Lynch under contract for 2 more seasons. Is that correct? I thought that part was changed to where the deal continues to run for the length of the contract otherwise a player like Davis who you mentioned could come out of retirement when he's 55 to collect more money from a team. There has to be some measure against that I would think.

    The measure against that is that they have to apply for reinstatement. That's a situation where the league will be like "No, you're too old and just trying to grab money"
    nIdahoSeahawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 373
    Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:46 pm
    Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:35 am
  • nIdahoSeahawk wrote:The measure against that is that they have to apply for reinstatement. That's a situation where the league will be like "No, you're too old and just trying to grab money"


    That was an extreme example... What about a player that's been out 3-4 years? Say he signed a big contract at 29 and retired and then wants to come back at 33 to collect on his contracts guaranteed money. That's certainly not fair to the team. The 29 year old that they gave that contract to is certainly not the same player as the 33 year old looking to come back. However, the NFL probably can't tell a 33 year old "no, you're too old to play".
    User avatar
    DJrmb
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 887
    Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:53 pm


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:39 am
  • All of this talk is why I try to heavily limit my posts until after the fact official news from the team has taken place. There is just too much stupid talk from "so called" reporters; announcers; analysts, or just people who don't have a clue what they are saying anymore. Trying to look at twitter and/or facebook for news is just plain stupid.

    We all would be better off not feeding these amateur idiots by repeating their drivel and wait for a real report from the team.
    kf3339
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2322
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:52 pm


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:40 am
  • Sleeping on this, Popeye is right on the money, and I was wrong. Lynch can pretty much dictate what he wants at this point.

    The idea of shopping him around only works with a normal player who wants to play football and keep earning. If Lynch was still wanting to play, we could easily shop him around. In fact I bet the Niners would be near the top of the list of suitors.

    That's not Lynch. He doesn't want to just play football, nor does he need to earn money. He wants to play football for Oakland (if rumors are correct), and that is the only team he would sign a contract with.

    No team is going to trade for him, knowing he won't sign a contract with them, even if they have the cap space and the desire to pay him 9 million or more. Sure we can reinstate him and trade him to another team, but every team knows he isn't going to sign a contract with anyone but Oakland, so they aren't going to trade with us.

    Oakland knows this, so they have no incentive to trade with us.

    Lynch holds all the cards. If he truly wants to play for Oakland, all he has to do is apply for reinstatement, and be patient.

    Maybe Oakland throws us a bone, but I doubt it.
    Fire Thom Cable
    User avatar
    bigskydoc
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1787
    Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:27 am
    Location: Kalispell, MT


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:50 am
  • DJrmb wrote: So if what you're saying is correct and the deal freezes then the Seahawks would have Lynch under contract for 2 more seasons. Is that correct? I thought that part was changed to where the deal continues to run for the length of the contract otherwise a player like Davis who you mentioned could come out of retirement when he's 55 to collect more money from a team. There has to be some measure against that I would think.


    Hmmm...I think you might be right about that change from in perpetuity to the length of the contract with the most recent CBA.

    So that means that the 2.5 million from last year is an open question about if it's owed or not. WIth Bam Davis it could have been that open question that was going to go to the NFLPA before he retired again, and why there was a disagreement about it to begin with. I do know in that situation (which was the same thing in reverse) bonus money never changed hands again, but don't know if that's because the NFLPA ruled on it or because Davis retired again too quickly for it to have mattered.

    Would that make us both wrong, or both right, or we still don't know? :lol:
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4160
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:01 am
  • I don't believe that Lynch wants to be unretired. He's perfectly happy being retired. I think this is a rumor started by the Raiders organization in hopes that Peterson will settle for less money to join them. They are the team that is desperate for a running back. Only Peterson and Charles are available (from a top back perspective). Both are probably extremely costly based on their experience and past productivity. They are doing all they can to try to get them for as low as they can. They need to start focusing on their defense because it seems they are facing a max exodus on that side of the ball and they weren't all that great there to begin with.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6388
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:05 am
  • The raiders are trying to leave California anyway, why would he want to play for a home team that's trying to move away?

    I don't believe it.
    The LOLs of the many outweigh the shame of the few
    User avatar
    Msfann
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1847
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:37 am


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:22 am
  • If it's completely made up, why hasn't Marshawn said anything? Things may have been overblown somewhere in the line of reports, but chances are it isn't based on nothing. Either there's at least some truth to it, or Marshawn just wants the attention. He has the ability to end this.
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 4629
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: Grand Rapids, MI


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:31 am
  • Image
    User avatar
    ZorntoLargent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1185
    Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:45 pm


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:41 am
  • Rat wrote:If it's completely made up, why hasn't Marshawn said anything?.


    Lynch never says anything.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    .NOW with Modership
     
    Posts: 5725
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:43 am

Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:49 am
  • Msfann wrote:The raiders are trying to leave California anyway, why would he want to play for a home team that's trying to move away?

    I don't believe it.


    Not saying he is, but if he went to the Raiders at the very most he'd be with them for two years, and probably not more than one.

    They'll be in Oakland while he's playing for him, and there's a pretty robust history of Raiders fans in Oakland staying Raiders fans even when the Raiders aren't playing there. :lol:
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4160
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:50 am
  • hawkfan68 wrote:I don't believe that Lynch wants to be unretired. He's perfectly happy being retired. I think this is a rumor started by the Raiders organization in hopes that Peterson will settle for less money to join them. They are the team that is desperate for a running back. Only Peterson and Charles are available (from a top back perspective). Both are probably extremely costly based on their experience and past productivity. They are doing all they can to try to get them for as low as they can. They need to start focusing on their defense because it seems they are facing a max exodus on that side of the ball and they weren't all that great there to begin with.


    If this is all smoke, I really like this theory a lot.

    It makes the most sense.

    :2thumbs:
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4160
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Lynch asks for release
Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:56 pm
  • In reality. Who gives a shit?

    I don't.

    I'm happy for his services here and wish him the best, but his time is done.....It's time to move on.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 34838
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm


Previous


It is currently Sun Aug 20, 2017 10:43 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online