Seahawks pay their players well

"Most of you probably don't think of the Seahawks as big spenders, but they spent more per player than 31 of 32 NFL teams in 2013. That's one of the interesting results from our ESPN The Magazine/Sportingintelligence Global Salary Survey. Last season's Super Bowl champs spent an average of $2.303 million per player in 2013."

http://espn.go.com/blog/seattle-seahawk ... g-spenders

that is not including the $$$ spent at the VMAC taking care of these guys.. first class organization.. even during losing seasons.. we are truly fortunate that our team is owned by a person who will spare no expense in order to win.

All that means is we have less dead money than other teams

Wenhawk":l3wozt0p said:

All that means is we have less dead money than other teams

Click to expand...

Well....I suppose that is how some football fans look at it. Others of us see it as our front office bending over backwards to keep our talent.

Bigpumpkin":311n4921 said:

Wenhawk":311n4921 said:

All that means is we have less dead money than other teams

Click to expand...

Well....I suppose that is how some football fans look at it. Others of us see it as our front office bending over backwards to keep our talent.

Click to expand...

At the end of the day the teams spends about the same amount per year on salaries. Not about treating players better.

It only speaks to how good the organization is at signing the right players but gets skewed year to year. We had more cuts this year vs last year as example (in dollars)

Bigpumpkin":1w73hsbt said:

Wenhawk":1w73hsbt said:

All that means is we have less dead money than other teams

Click to expand...

Well....I suppose that is how some football fans look at it. Others of us see it as our front office bending over backwards to keep our talent.

Click to expand...

There is a salary cap, so it's pretty hard for NFL teams to spend much more than others on their players. But when you are a team who is still paying players (dead $) who aren't on your roster it's much harder to pay the guys who are on your roster.

This is a good thing, it means we are spending our money on guys who are still here so per player our avg pay is higher than teams who lost $$$ paying guys who they cut.

Wenhawk":mn9pxqda said:

Bigpumpkin":mn9pxqda said:

Wenhawk":mn9pxqda said:

All that means is we have less dead money than other teams

Click to expand...

Well....I suppose that is how some football fans look at it. Others of us see it as our front office bending over backwards to keep our talent.

Click to expand...

There is a salary cap, so it's pretty hard for NFL teams to spend much more than others on their players. But when you are a team who is still paying players (dead $) who aren't on your roster it's much harder to pay the guys who are on your roster.

This is a good thing, it means we are spending our money on guys who are still here so per player our avg pay is higher than teams who lost $$$ paying guys who they cut.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, it's a calculation difference in Mean vs Median.

Basically the article is saying we have less super-sized contracts tied to superstars than other teams, so the overall spending is better spread out to the overall roster than a team spending their majority on big-name players with large salaries.

It makes makes sense as the positions that normally demand large salaries (QB, CB, MLB) are playing with the Seahawks on cheap rookie contracts.

I think this is going to change somewhat. In building the team JS/PC went after rookie talent and vets with something to prove for the most part. Out of that they have to determine who are the major players that propel the team. In the end as those contracts come up for renewal the compensation picture will change. Players like RW and RS will be kept but there will be a cost that will change the dynamic in the team compensation picture.

Recon_Hawk":15xg234p said:

Wenhawk":15xg234p said:

Bigpumpkin":15xg234p said:

Wenhawk":15xg234p said:

All that means is we have less dead money than other teams

Click to expand...

Well....I suppose that is how some football fans look at it. Others of us see it as our front office bending over backwards to keep our talent.

Click to expand...

There is a salary cap, so it's pretty hard for NFL teams to spend much more than others on their players. But when you are a team who is still paying players (dead $) who aren't on your roster it's much harder to pay the guys who are on your roster.

This is a good thing, it means we are spending our money on guys who are still here so per player our avg pay is higher than teams who lost $$$ paying guys who they cut.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, it's a calculation difference in Mean vs Median.

Basically the article is saying we have less super-sized contracts tied to superstars than other teams, so the overall spending is better spread out to the overall roster than a team spending their majority on big-name players with large salaries.

It makes makes sense as the positions that normally demand large salaries (QB, CB, MLB) are playing with the Seahawks on cheap rookie contracts.

Click to expand...

"The lists include money paid in salaries to players who form the "first-team squad" or active roster across a season. Salaries for the survey are taken from the following years:"
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/1070 ... -magazine/


http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/1076 ... n-magazine

This does not sound like mean vs median to me. It is simply the avg salary our or Active 52 players. So when we are maxing out our salary cap with guys who are here while other teams are paying guys who arent' they can't really pay their active 52 as much as us. This just shows we have a salary cap situation in good order.