HawkShack.com

by **monkey** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:08 pm

This is clearly a carefully leaked trade rumor, one that sends the message the Seahawks want Kam to get. The fact that the deal is "nowhere near being close", tells you everything you need to know about why this particular report got leaked. This says to Kam: "We still love you and hope you report but we are going to have to move on if you don't get your butt into camp, so don't force our hand."

I think it's funny that we're just hearing about one team inquiring about Kam, I can guarantee EVERY team has called to see what it would take. 31 teams would be willing to make a deal for Kam, for the right price of course. I can pretty much guarantee that any GM worth his salt would have at least gotten in touch to get a feel for where things stand!
Us hearing about this particular "trade rumor" is intentional.

by **NorthHawk** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:14 pm

We don't really hear much trade talk from our FO before a deal is done, so yeah, it's probably a message to Kam.
I hope he stays, but this is a business and although it won't cost the team monetarily, they have to firm up plans for the longer term.

by **Seahawks4Ever** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:05 pm

I said a couple of weeks ago that the Giants had lost two starting Safeties to injuries and might make the Hawks a decent offer for Kam.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see Kam leave either but he has been chipping his teeth to Mike Rob that he is willing to sit out the entire season. I hate players and Front Offices that try to negotiate through the press.

Kam may be in "shape" but even so, he is a long way from game shape. Too many times I have seen players miss this much time and then pull or tear a hamstring early in their comeback. Then the team has to pay their entire salary for the year, would that be fair to the team??

kam has painted him self into a corner and tied the team's hands. If he does go, I hope we get a great O-Lineman and som decent draft picks for him.

But, this is hardly a surprise after I read about the problems the Giants had with injuries in their defensive backfield several weeks ago.

I would hate to see him go, but sh!t happens.

by **monkey** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:07 pm

Old but Slow wrote:I would assume that this is coming from the Giant's camp rather than from JS. If from the Seattle camp then it would likely mention "a number of unspecified teams" rather than one specifically.

Maybe, and John and Pete do pride themselves on not leaking information, so that would make some sense...the thing is, I think naming a specific team, makes the point even more emphatically. than just saying unspecified team has inquired about so and so does. It just doesn't have nearly the force of impact that naming a specific team does IMO, and naming the Giants who really are desperate for safety help, makes even more sense.
That's why I think this is leaked, and intentionally so to make Kam feel the pressure to report.
I could be wrong...but it sure feels that way to me.

by **burrrton** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:23 pm

"The Giants are interested in trading for Kam Chancellor- why, just go to my website where I tell you so for proof!"

by **NorthHawk** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:43 pm

It was reported here, too.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... hancellor/

Then again, if his blog was the source...

by **Hawktawk** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:09 pm

Heres how I see this going down. If Seattle looks dominant on defense and stifles their first couple of opponents Chancellor will either report or be traded. If they lose and look weak in the secondary they will be trying to figure out how to get him back ASAP. Its a waiting game. My great hope is that Cams great love for the game and the team will cause him to reconsider and step on the field with the first unit next Sunday. Either way though, next man up.......

by **RiverDog** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:22 pm

burrrton wrote:"The Giants are interested in trading for Kam Chancellor- why, just go to my website where I tell you so for proof!"

The guy's trolling for posters.

by **jshawaii22** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:25 pm

At this point, it looks like the only way he "Wins" anything is IF we trade him to a team that will tear up his contract, and under the rules, any team we want to trade him to couldn't negotiate with him, as it would be tampering, wouldn't it? This will limit what we can get in compensation.

If he holds out the entire year, I don't think he gets credit for the year, and still owes us the same 3 years and I would assume that the fines, if we wanted to be punitive, would roll-over to whenever he first reports. It would seem that not reporting wouldn't have a large benefit for him and could derail his career. I think he should fire his agent. He got some bad advice. Real Bad Advice. Michael Bennett and Irvin seemed to understand that the team usually wins.

What happens to his 'cap' space when he doesn't report? Do we now have an extra 5.5M?

by **NorthHawk** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:46 pm

I believe Cap space is saved on a pro rated basis if he reports.
Fines for not reporting are not considered as Cap savings should it get to that.

by **jshawaii22** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:49 pm

I can't imagine Kam being ready in less then 3 weeks after reporting, no matter what 'shape' he would be in.

by **c_hawkbob** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 6:32 am

Everyone is interested in Kam and at least half the teams in the league have "had discussions" with the Seahawks about him.

Representative discussion example:

Inquiring team: "John, great to get to talk to you, now about Kam Chancellor ..."

John Schneider: "Not interested" *click*

by **monkey** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:34 am

c_hawkbob wrote:Everyone is interested in Kam and at least half the teams in the league have "had discussions" with the Seahawks about him.

Representative discussion example:

Inquiring team: "John, great to get to talk to you, now about Kam Chancellor ..."

John Schneider: "Not interested" *click*

Exactly!

by **RiverDog** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:45 am

c_hawkbob wrote:Everyone is interested in Kam and at least half the teams in the league have "had discussions" with the Seahawks about him.

Representative discussion example:

Inquiring team: "John, great to get to talk to you, now about Kam Chancellor ..."

John Schneider: "Not interested" *click*

So why wouldn't we be expressing interest in trading Kam? What harm does it do to make a few calls and get an idea of what kind of market exists for him?

It seems a reasonable course of action to me. You always have to know what your options are, and if Kam doesn't report soon, trading him has to be an option that any responsible GM would consider. Besides, it sends a signal to Kam and his agent, and makes him wonder "would they really trade me?" It could be the motivation it takes to get his butt in here. Actually pulling the trigger on a trade offer is a completely separate matter. I would be very surprised if there wasn't detailed discussions encompassing more than just the "not interested" hanging up on the caller ones you are suggesting.

If I have a great car that I really like and the neighbor across the street calls me about it, I'm not going to hang up on him. I want to know what he'd be willing to give me for it regardless of how committed to keeping it that I am, for curiosity's sake if nothing else. Who knows, he might make me an offer I can't refuse.

by **SalmonBB** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:59 am

This whole situation gives me a similar feeling to when we lost Steve Hutchinson to Minnesota. Completely different, I realize, in several ways - such as the fact that for Hutchinson, he was at the end of his contract and Kam is not.

But what is the same is this sense of being hurt or slighted in some way by the players involved, which in turn drives decisions by them that probably seem logical in their destabalized emotional state - but to any outsider, are purely non-sensical. In both cases, the FO (in my opinion) was/is being fair to the player - even incredibly supportive - but when the player perceives something different ... it's the beginning of the end. It is this phenomenon that on the surface is defined by money, but really goes a lot deeper into the depths of badness and evil.. It is something that can ruin any of us, quite frankly, if we let it ... it is a noxious weed, and once it gains root...

The other unfortunate likeness is that the individual involved let's the process take over and goes with it, not letting their heart in ... denying the part of the player that is on the good side of things. The part that guided their passion for the game, and the love for their teammates and team.

FInally, I think another likeness could be in the ultimate effect on the team's record. I believe Hutchinson's loss directly help us go from SB contender to sub .500 team. I think the loss of Kam could have the exact same effect. He's that big. But he's asking of the FO what they cannot do.

I tend to look on the down side. I tend to be perceptive, but often am overly so. Fortunately, I was wrong in predicting we would not sign RW. But in RW's case, I think he was better-girded against the "evil forces of money," not breaking from the requirements of his contract, and ultimately leading to a great deal for him and the team. Sure, he wanted his payday, but he didn't let it take him where it apparently has led Kam.

Very disturbing. And this all falls on Kam, in my opinion. Wish he could break out of his fog, and realize that the cost of "saving face" and earning a few extra dollars could be playing on a new team where he is no longer part of a legion, and out there on his own. Yes ... alone. And for what?

GO SEAHAWKS!!!

by **RiverDog** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 8:11 am

SalmonBB wrote:This whole situation gives me a similar feeling to when we lost Steve Hutchinson to Minnesota. Completely different, I realize, in several ways - such as the fact that for Hutchinson, he was at the end of his contract and Kam is not.

But what is the same is this sense of being hurt or slighted in some way by the players involved, which in turn drives decisions by them that probably seem logical in their destabalized emotional state - but to any outsider, are purely non-sensical. In both cases, the FO (in my opinion) was/is being fair to the player - even incredibly supportive - but when the player perceives something different ... it's the beginning of the end. It is this phenomenon that on the surface is defined by money, but really goes a lot deeper into the depths of badness and evil.. It is something that can ruin any of us, quite frankly, if we let it ... it is a noxious weed, and once it gains root...

The other unfortunate likeness is that the individual involved let's the process take over and goes with it, not letting their heart in ... denying the part of the player that is on the good side of things. The part that guided their passion for the game, and the love for their teammates and team.

FInally, I think another likeness could be in the ultimate effect on the team's record. I believe Hutchinson's loss directly help us go from SB contender to sub .500 team. I think the loss of Kam could have the exact same effect. He's that big. But he's asking of the FO what they cannot do.

I tend to look on the down side. I tend to be perceptive, but often am overly so. Fortunately, I was wrong in predicting we would not sign RW. But in RW's case, I think he was better-girded against the "evil forces of money," not breaking from the requirements of his contract, and ultimately leading to a great deal for him and the team. Sure, he wanted his payday, but he didn't let it take him where it apparently has led Kam.

Very disturbing. And this all falls on Kam, in my opinion. Wish he could break out of his fog, and realize that the cost of "saving face" and earning a few extra dollars could be playing on a new team where he is no longer part of a legion, and out there on his own. Yes ... alone. And for what?

GO SEAHAWKS!!!

We didn't quite go to sub .500 after Hutch left. We were still competitive, won the division for a couple of years afterwards, even won a couple of playoff games (Remember the Romo-ooskie?).

But your point is well taken. Although we have to recognize the loss of several other key pieces, of which Hutch was the most significant but also included the retirements of Robbie Tobeck, Mack Strong, and the implosion of Shaun Alexander, we started on a downward spiral that led to a couple of Raider-like seasons in 2008 and 2009.

I'm not sure I want to equate the possibility of losing Kam to the defection of Hutch, but I have a hard time imagining a trade involving Kam that would result in us coming close to breaking even on the deal.

by **SalmonBB** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 8:14 am

That 2008 season is the one I was thinking of. Understand it wasn't immediate, but I'd argue the downfall had begun. Yea... I'm just talking my feel on this whole thing. Not arguing stats and numbers.

GO SEAHAWKS!!!

by **c_hawkbob** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:08 am

RiverDog wrote:
So why wouldn't we be expressing interest in trading Kam?

It doesn't matter why, the fact is we're not.

But to answer your question, we're a better team with Kam and there is zero motivation to acquiesce to his demands or to trade him. We hold all the cards, every single one of them. If Kam wants to play football, it's going to be as a Seahawk.

by **NorthHawk** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:31 am

There is a defined point in the season a player has to report for it to be considered a years work on the contract. I think it's the 10th game, but not sure.
If he reports after that date, then the contract continues the next year as if the entire season was missed. So in this case he would still only be in the 3rd year of a 5 year contract next year.

All that to say I think he returns prior to the deadline for accruing a full contract year. After all, it would then put him into the 4th year of a 5 year contract next year but if he misses the date he will be considered to still only be in the 3rd year of the contract.

Having said that, I read from Rotoworld:
"Bleacher Report's Jason Cole expects the Seahawks to add a year to hold-out SS Kam Chancellor's contract while giving him more money up front.
In other words, Cole expects the Seahawks to cave. Chancellor has not budged an inch in his holdout and has consistently said he is willing to miss regular season games to get what he wants. With barely more than a week left until the start of the regular season, Seattle is running out of time to get Chancellor in the fold before Week 1"

by **c_hawkbob** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:57 am

I've said from the beginning I'm not worried till we're playing games that count and he's not here. That remains the case.

by **RiverDog** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:15 am

c_hawkbob wrote:But to answer your question, we're a better team with Kam and there is zero motivation to acquiesce to his demands or to trade him. We hold all the cards, every single one of them. If Kam wants to play football, it's going to be as a Seahawk.

That wasn't my question. Here's my question: "So why wouldn't we be expressing interest in trading Kam? What harm does it do to make a few calls and get an idea of what kind of market exists for him?"

I agree that there is zero motivation to cave into his demands, to trade him, and that we hold all the cards. My question is about our posture. Entertaining offers doesn't mean that we have to accept them, so why not at least put out some feelers and act like we might trade him?

by **c_hawkbob** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:27 am

RiverDog wrote:That wasn't my question. Here's my question: "So why wouldn't we be expressing interest in trading Kam? What harm does it do to make a few calls and get an idea of what kind of market exists for him?"

I agree that there is zero motivation to cave into his demands, to trade him, and that we hold all the cards. My question is about our posture. Entertaining offers doesn't mean that we have to accept them, so why not at least put out some feelers and act like we might trade him?

I'm sorry but I think I answered that question pretty completely. What part of "we're a better team with him" did you not understand?

by **NorthHawk** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:29 am

I can see where RD is going with his question.
It can help determine market value in the event they want to do some type of contract restructuring.

by **c_hawkbob** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:37 am

But his market value is not equal to his value to our team. No one is going to offer us Odell Beckham Jr for him, and that's the kind of difference maker it'd take to even open a dialog. We're simply not listening to offers at all right now.

If he actually does hold out well into the season that could change, but I don't think there's any way that's actually gonna happen.

by **RiverDog** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:42 am

That's only part of my question, North. The other part is that appearing willing to trade him might induce some concern on Kam's part that we might actually pull the trigger, and if he wants to stay with the team like I think he does, he might think he's tickling the dragon's tail by staying out and risking getting traded. Like I said, what harm will it do if we simply put out some feelers?

Cbob, you're missing my point entirely. I agree with everything you've said about the situation, but that's not what I was getting at.

by **yoder** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:43 am

burrrton wrote:"The Giants are interested in trading for Kam Chancellor- why, just go to my website where I tell you so for proof!"

He's gone...again!

by **c_hawkbob** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:47 am

Sic 'em Yoder!

by **politicalfootball** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 3:19 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:But his market value is not equal to his value to our team. No one is going to offer us Odell Beckham Jr for him, and that's the kind of difference maker it'd take to even open a dialog. We're simply not listening to offers at all right now.

If he actually does hold out well into the season that could change, but I don't think there's any way that's actually gonna happen.

Well here we are its the regular season so where is Kam. He needs to get his butt in practice. Or maybe he just feels so supieor he can sit it out til the first game.

by **obiken** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 4:17 pm

The guy's trolling for posters.[/quote]

He is not the only one who predicted the Giants interest in him River, I predicted it as well but I stole some of my stuff from KJR's Chuck Powell.
IF we got a Beckham or Cruz for him fine, but if we get a 3 or 4th rounder for him, I am going to FTFO for the first big time since we passed on Ed Read and took Jeremy Stevens.

by **HumanCockroach** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 6:56 pm

LOL, every club is "interested" in one of the best defenders in the league, whether Seattle has any interest in trading him is another matter. Last rumored offer I read was Philly with a 1 st, 3rd, 4th and two players, who were turned away. He is not going anywhere, and his value, is a HELL of a lot more than this ridiculous, SS value fans here seem to be claiming.

by **Seahawks4Ever** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:37 pm

I kept reading posts in here; "don't worry, TC is still weeks away, something will be done"."I will start to worry if a deal is not done by TC".

Then it was; It isn't even TC yet, don't worry, a deal will get done and Kam will be back".

Then it was; "Walter Jones didn't need TC and neither does Kam, a deal will get done any day now".

There is just a week now before the season opener, I think it is OK to be worried that Kam might miss part or all of the season or even be traded.

Kam, you got paid before anybody else in the LOB, and now are playing the "respect" card. The F/O showed you respect, it is YOU Kam that has shown the disrespect to all of your team mates.

by **burrrton** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:37 pm

Kam, you got paid before anybody else in the LOB, and now are playing the "respect" card. The F/O showed you respect, it is YOU Kam that has shown the disrespect to all of your team mates.

This. I'm about a week away from a 'Fck you, Kam' post, and it makes me ill to think of that.

I'm getting there, though. He has no leg to stand on, strategically or morally. He's hurting my team, and it's bullsht.

by **Vegaseahawk** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:36 pm

"The Giants are interested in trading for Kam Chancellor- why, just go to my website where I tell you so for proof!"

I actually read this guys blog out of curiosity. Lame.

by **RiverDog** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 2:14 pm

burrrton wrote:This. I'm about a week away from a 'Fck you, Kam' post, and it makes me ill to think of that.

I'm getting there, though. He has no leg to stand on, strategically or morally. He's hurting my team, and it's bullsht.

This holdout is really strange, to the point of being bizarre. There is absolutely no logic behind it It's beginning to smell a lot like Percy Harvin's mysterious hip injury (and no, I am not comparing Kam to Harvin). I'm beginning to think that Kam might be suffering some sort of emotional stress from his rehab, that he might be questioning his own desire to continue to play the game. Perhaps he has some safety concerns. Who knows. But he's not this dumb and he's not a selfish prick like Harvin was. Kam's a good guy and a enjoys overwhelming support from his teammates so I have a hard time believing that he'd jeopardize the team's chances of going back to the SB due to his own selfish greed. That's not him.

by **monkey** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 2:29 pm

RiverDog wrote:So why wouldn't we be expressing interest in trading Kam?

Because there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to bother.
We have him under contract for three more years, and any team that would be interested in him, would never be willing to pay the price, which would include tearing up his existing contract, and making him the highest paid safety in football.
That team would be on the hook for paying that money, plus multiple draft picks. No one is going to do that!
Are other teams interested to see if the Seahawks are stupid enough, or desperate enough to trade him for much, MUCH less than his worth? Of course, who doesn't want a steal? The Seahawks aren't stupid enough or desperate enough, because there's no reason to be.
Kam is the ONLY one hurt by this, he's going to cost himself money, meanwhile the team will just play without him until he gets sick and tired of throwing away millions of dollars on a temper tantrum, because he feels disrespected by being the third highest paid player at his position instead of the highest.

In other words, he has NO LEVERAGE AT ALL, so there's no reason to bother. No team can afford him, and the Seahawks aren't under any pressure to do anything. THe exact opposite is true actually, they are under pressure NOT to do anything, because if they did re-negotiate, Bennett would be next in line with his hand out, soon followed by Avril, and etc...
Trading him, and giving into his demands would be an unmitigated DISASTER for this team! FAR worse than just letting him throw away paychecks and ignoring his tantrum.

by **monkey** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 2:36 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:I've said from the beginning I'm not worried till we're playing games that count and he's not here. That remains the case.

Exactly again Bob, exactly.
There's not one reason whatsoever to do anything at all. The Seahawks don't need to, once Kam starts watching millions of dollars just disappear, he'll report soon enough. And if he doesn't, OH WELL! It's his pay check that will suffer for this REALLY bad decision to hold out.
If I were him, I'd fire my stupid agent, (apparently the same one who got him this contract to begin with), and blame him, (whether it's the agents fault or not...which I doubt actually), report to practice and move on. He has nothing to gain, and millions to lose.

Actually, while fans are busily wringing their hands over this, the truth is, as far as setting a precedent goes, this is GOOD for the team long term, so long as they stick to their guns.
So long as they do exactly nothing at all, then other players who are thinking of doing this will be far less eager to try. The ONLY thing the Seahawks should do with Kam is tell him that, "If you get your butt into practice now, we may still waive the fines, otherwise, kiss your paychecks goodbye!"

by **NorthHawk** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:24 pm

Yeah, a million dollars or thereabouts lost per month can be pretty persuasive.
I doubt that whenever he returns he pays any type of fine. That could poison any relationship in future negotiations including when his contract is up.

by **burrrton** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:30 pm

Kam's a good guy and a enjoys overwhelming support from his teammates so I have a hard time believing that he'd jeopardize the team's chances of going back to the SB due to his own selfish greed. That's not him.

Yup. Agreed, and that's why I can't bring myself to start hating on him yet, though is actions probably call for it.

This Just. Isn't. Him. At least as far as his public persona. He comes across as intelligent and humble, and this doesn't jibe with that.

If I were him, I'd fire my stupid agent, (apparently the same one who got him this contract to begin with), and blame him, (whether it's the agents fault or not...which I doubt actually), report to practice and move on. He has nothing to gain, and millions to lose.

Yup Yup.

Fire the idiot that told him there was something to be gained here, play his ass off this season (as he usually does), then ask for a renegotiation next year (and be prepared to play again if the team can't do it).

I doubt that whenever he returns he pays any type of fine.

I bet if he returns before this game, maybe the next, he'll avoid the fines. If he skips regular season games with this tantrum, though, I bet the team keeps the fines in place.

I see your point about poisoning future negotiations, but if you're potentially costing your team games that count, I'm not seeing the same forgiveness.

by **LTH** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:32 pm

I think conventional logic does not apply to anything the seahawks do...

just my take,

LTH

by **NorthHawk** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:36 pm

His "fine" will be somewhere around $270,000 per game. I believe that's part of the CBA so it's not subject to debate.
The fines I was referring to are those optional ones of $30,000 per day of TC.

HawkShack.com

Who is online