"While Seattle has told QB Matt Flynn they are willing to trade him, finding trade partner is problematic because several expect he'll be cut."
Not that surprising.
"While Seattle has told QB Matt Flynn they are willing to trade him, finding trade partner is problematic because several expect he'll be cut."
HawkFan72 wrote:but if we hang on to him some team will get desperate enough to give up something for him. Besides that, he's a solid backup. To cut him would mean downgrading the team and losing any chance at compensation to save some room in the budget (which at this point, is not needed).
kidhawk wrote:Nothing that wasn't being said about T-Jack last year and he never got cut either.
NorthDallas40oz wrote:And the Hawks aren't hurting for cap space in the first place. Not even close, actually.
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:HawkFan72 wrote:but if we hang on to him some team will get desperate enough to give up something for him. Besides that, he's a solid backup. To cut him would mean downgrading the team and losing any chance at compensation to save some room in the budget (which at this point, is not needed).
Well... it often gets said that some desperate team will offer something. I think John Schneider has earned a level of respect now where if Flynn gets cut, it's because there wasn't a deal to be done.
I generally think we way overrate this guy as a fan base. He's going to be a 28-year-old career back-up earning over seven times more than our dynamic pro-bowl quarterback next year. That makes absolutely zero sense. We simply do not need Matt Flynn that badly. We can find a back-up. No other teams in the NFL are really wringing their hands over the backup QB situation.
And if we can save $3m or whatever that is IDEAL. Remember - any unused cap this year can be thrown forward to NEXT YEAR. Meaning a better opportunity to start re-signing our young talent as contracts get close to completion. That is why cap room every year is KING for this front office.
pehawk wrote:The timing of the statement smells all sorts of fishy.
HawkFan72 wrote:If it were any other position, I would agree with you.
But this is a QB we're talking about, and that is the most difficult position to find players for, and we have seen what even mediocre QBs can drive desperate teams to do on the trade market. And there are a bunch of teams this year who are looking for a QB to at least come in and compete for a starting job.
Flynn's contract is not trade-prohibitive. I am expecting at least a 6th rounder for him.
kidhawk wrote:Nothing that wasn't being said about T-Jack last year and he never got cut either.
sutz wrote:Oh, and show me where in the rule book or the CBA it says your backup must make less than a starter.
pehawk wrote:But, how would Seattle know there's no takers? And, what are other teams suppose to say "yes, I want him, please reduce my negotiating positioning and increase the cost by reporting that".
Hawkfan77 wrote:he's better than you're giving him credit for.
pehawk wrote:Think of it this way; would JS tell ANYONE he's interested in trading for Flynn if he was on the other end? Or, would he say no, so he doesn't have to compete wsith others to get the lowest cost?
therealjohncarlson wrote:kidhawk wrote:Nothing that wasn't being said about T-Jack last year and he never got cut either.
well... he probably would have though. Anyway you cant say for sure he wouldnt have been
kidhawk wrote:Also, I wish people would stop with the myth of cap room. We have A LOT of cap room, and will likely create even more when we keep some of the rookies we draft at the expense of some of the vets. Cap room is not an issue. I'd be willing to bet, that keep Flynn or not, we have cap room to spare when the season starts.
Zebulon Dak wrote:kidhawk wrote:Also, I wish people would stop with the myth of cap room. We have A LOT of cap room, and will likely create even more when we keep some of the rookies we draft at the expense of some of the vets. Cap room is not an issue. I'd be willing to bet, that keep Flynn or not, we have cap room to spare when the season starts.
I certainly hope so because it's going to roll over into the next year and that's when we're gonna need it!
kidhawk wrote:Also, I wish people would stop with the myth of cap room. We have A LOT of cap room, and will likely create even more when we keep some of the rookies we draft at the expense of some of the vets. Cap room is not an issue. I'd be willing to bet, that keep Flynn or not, we have cap room to spare when the season starts.
kidhawk wrote:How many times are we allowed to roll it over? I was under the impression that either this was the last time (going to next season) or maybe it's next year? I just remember hearing somewhere that the rolling over of cap space was only temporary?
Also, isn't there a new rule in the CBA that kicks in soon where teams have to spend a higher percentage of the cap each year as a minimum?
FlyingGreg wrote:^ Agreed. Cutting him doesn't make sense. You trade him for picks or you hold on to him for depth.
Those teams "expecting him to be cut" - that's wishful thinking.
GoHawks wrote:The key word here is problematic: it doesn't say he won't be traded.
GCrow wrote:Meh, even if we can't find a trading partner cut him loose.
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:Hawkfan77 wrote:he's better than you're giving him credit for.
Why is he? Nobody wanted him last year except us.
HawkFan72 wrote:This is slight exaggeration to make your point. The Dolphins also wanted him.
And to say that just because only 2 teams wanted him last year that NO teams will want him this year makes no sense. There are at least 7 teams that have had a complete turnover at the GM spot and/or the HC spot that may be looking for a QB that were not last year.
Just because a situation was something last offseason does not mean it is the same this year. Your argument is very flawed.
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:kidhawk wrote:Also, I wish people would stop with the myth of cap room. We have A LOT of cap room, and will likely create even more when we keep some of the rookies we draft at the expense of some of the vets. Cap room is not an issue. I'd be willing to bet, that keep Flynn or not, we have cap room to spare when the season starts.
There's no myth. The new CBA allows teams to push forward a specified amount of unused cap each year. The more cap room you have, the more you can push forward.
The reason Seattle has as much cap room this off-season as it does is because they specified quite a large amount to move forward. Saving as much cap room as possible every season is crucial now for teams with a young roster. If you want to be able to keep Okung, Thomas, Kam, Sherman etc... then you need to keep pushing forward as much as possible each year.
Spending $7.25m on a backup QB this year is a complete waste of money that could be put to better use... if not this year, then next year. It's not about having pure cap anymore. The new CBA is making it possible to reward teams who draft well. We need to take advantage. And our front office will be fully aware of that. A $3m saving should not be sniffed at.kidhawk wrote:How many times are we allowed to roll it over? I was under the impression that either this was the last time (going to next season) or maybe it's next year? I just remember hearing somewhere that the rolling over of cap space was only temporary?
Also, isn't there a new rule in the CBA that kicks in soon where teams have to spend a higher percentage of the cap each year as a minimum?
We've checked and there was no specification that roll over ended this year. It appears to be possible until the deal runs out in 2021.
And yes you have to minimum spend - that won't be an issue when we try to re-sign Okung, Thomas, Sherman etc.
kidhawk wrote:Reading through the CBA, yes you can push leftover cap forward, and there is a minimum spend amount. The amount is currently at 89% according to the CBA. Using last year's cap number of 120.6 million, that means a team could push forward, as much as 13.266 million if they maxed out. We are currently sitting at over $18 million, and that doesn't figure in the salaries of veterans that will likely be swapped out for rookies we draft this year, so that number should offset the slight increase in salary cap (if there is any) from last year to this year. This means that we currently have over $5 million in money we absolutely HAVE to spend, above and beyond what we are currently spending. So when you look at players being replaced and figure in their salary vs. free agent replacements, we must spend at a minimum, $5 million more this year. This still should not become an issue to where we have to cut Flynn because of his contract. Now, we may find a trade partner for him, and that scenario seems much more plausible, but given the math, I just still don't see cutting him as a necessity, unless it's something that Flynn has pushed for or perhaps something they may have agreed to if he played his role well this season.
Coug_Hawk08 wrote:What a half ass tweet. I don't buy it. We trade him or hold onto him.
Jville wrote:Seattle guaranteed $4 million of Flynn's $5.25 million base salary for 2013. They are also on the hook to write off $4 million of the original $6 million singing bonus. That totals up to $8 million in "dead cap money" they would have to write off if they cut Flynn outright. I fail to see any benefit in that.
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:And it's not that flawed really, is it? I mean, you could argue it's more flawed to believe things will be different 12 months on for a 28-year-old with his physical qualities? And two career starts? I could be wrong, but my point is far from flawed. When they guy was a free agent and cost no compensation but his salary, there was minimal interest apart from the team that eventually signed him (us). Adam Schefter - not a bad source for info - is predicting it'll be the same again this year. It's not a major stretch to side with him.
If you were expecting a diatribe there's a 140 character limit...
pehawk wrote:And, the market for him last year is entirely irrelevant. Last year was the strongest QB class since 1983 (and the CBA incentivizes drafting one of those). Also, that Manning guy.
chris98251 wrote:I just beleive he has a under appreciation in some cases of QB's
chris98251 wrote:Flynn knows our system, were going for it this next year, Wilsons salary low versus Flynns salary still ranks us as a low cost team for QB's. English has stated you can't win a Super Bowl unless you have a top 10 pick at QB in this leage, now he is saying a qualified back up isn't necessary. Dolphins would say shame on you, 49ers had Monatan and Young, I guess that was a waste of cap money also and never paid off. Jeez what would have heppened if Pittsburgh would have had a actual legitimate QB to fill in for Ben when he got hurt this year. A tem in a serious contention position doesn't need a grooming QB, they need someone that can manage and not lose games and have the tools to win if necessary.
English has a lot of good information, I just beleive he has a under appreciation in some cases of QB's and a over confidence on the media declaring others sure fire.
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:pehawk wrote:And, the market for him last year is entirely irrelevant. Last year was the strongest QB class since 1983 (and the CBA incentivizes drafting one of those). Also, that Manning guy.
It's hardly irrelevant. You can call it the strongest class since whenever in hindsight. Nobody was saying that beyond Luck/RGIII pre-draft and only two teams had a shot at those two players. Teams like Cleveland preferred to spend a R1 pick on a 29-year-old despite running a WCO that would appear to suit Flynn. No interest at all. His old coach in Miami didn't sign him and was rolling with Matt Moore it seems had Tannehill not made it to their pick at #8. These points are not irrelevant. People keep preaching the importance of the position. Here was a big name free agent and his market was cold.
So yeah... it could be red hot this year. We'll see in two months. But last year is not irrelevant as we ponder whether he'll get a shot somewhere else via trade.
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:LINK: https://twitter.com/JasonColeYahoo/stat ... 2142918656"While Seattle has told QB Matt Flynn they are willing to trade him, finding trade partner is problematic because several expect he'll be cut."
Not that surprising.
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:Jville wrote:Seattle guaranteed $4 million of Flynn's $5.25 million base salary for 2013. They are also on the hook to write off $4 million of the original $6 million singing bonus. That totals up to $8 million in "dead cap money" they would have to write off if they cut Flynn outright. I fail to see any benefit in that.
$4m is guaranteed but they're paying him $7.25m in total. Cutting him saves $3.25m.
It is currently Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:53 am
Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]