Chancellor and Bennett

[RiverDog]

I just got to thinking: I haven't heard a peep about Kam Chancellor and Michael Bennett during this offseason, two players that last season, made it very well known that they were unhappy with their contracts. Does that mean that all is forgotten and that they'll both be at camp without the contract distractions?

[savvyman]

I just got to thinking: I haven't heard a peep about Kam Chancellor and Michael Bennett during this offseason, two players that last season, made it very well known that they were unhappy with their contracts. Does that mean that all is forgotten and that they'll both be at camp without the contract distractions?

Bennett apparently has indicated he will be there.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/seahawks/2016/06/14/michael-bennett-contract-seattle-seahawks/85896658/


Besides being a hellofa Defensive Lineman - he is also a high quality person:

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/stephen-curry-basketball-camp-michael-bennett-seahawks-warriors/9phkkypat8zs1ocpgcecx4h22

[HumanCockroach]

Forgotten? No. Accepted? Yes.

Both players want more money, really don't think that's in doubt, however IMHO both are willing to "gamble" on a big season which will benefit them both after the year. Chancellor and Bennett are due BIG paydays coming up, and while you can get that payday without the perception that a player is a leader, teams are more likely to offer those types of deals to lockerroom leaders that don't grumble about money, playing time, hold out etc.

Ultimately I only give Seattle about a 10% chance to retain both players and only about a 40% chance to retain one of them. The market is going to be active for both, and really I only see Seattle retaining either if they agree to terms BEFORE they hit the market ( more likely Kam and its going to be EXPENSIVE).

[obiken]

Neither one is going to hold out. JS proved that is a non starter. Von Millers contract was just stupid for a LB. RB's and LB's are the most temporary commodity, in the NFL.

[burrrton]

I just got to thinking: I haven't heard a peep about Kam Chancellor and Michael Bennett during this offseason, two players that last season, made it very well known that they were unhappy with their contracts. Does that mean that all is forgotten and that they'll both be at camp without the contract distractions?

IIRC, MB vowed he'd be in camp new extension or not, and Kam lost his bargaining power to a certain degree.

[RiverDog]

Forgotten? No. Accepted? Yes.

Both players want more money, really don't think that's in doubt, however IMHO both are willing to "gamble" on a big season which will benefit them both after the year. Chancellor and Bennett are due BIG paydays coming up, and while you can get that payday without the perception that a player is a leader, teams are more likely to offer those types of deals to lockerroom leaders that don't grumble about money, playing time, hold out etc.

Ultimately I only give Seattle about a 10% chance to retain both players and only about a 40% chance to retain one of them. The market is going to be active for both, and really I only see Seattle retaining either if they agree to terms BEFORE they hit the market ( more likely Kam and its going to be EXPENSIVE).

If I had to choose between the two, the choice is pretty clear: I'd take Bennett any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[obiken]

Tough choice I would Chancellor because he is such a good leader. Both are really good. The most overrated Hawk, Cliff Avril.

[HumanCockroach]

Why?

[HumanCockroach]

If I had to choose between the two, the choice is pretty clear: I'd take Bennett any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

RiverDog
Legacy

Posts: 5126
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 9:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Not sure I understand the reasoning there. Bennett is older, and there is viable replacements on the roster for him. Not sure Kam can be replaced as easily, and is a difference maker every bit as much as Bennett. Add in that it's cheaper to pay a top salaried safety than it is a DE and I'm not sure how the choice is remotely clear.

[obiken]

Not sure I understand the reasoning there. Bennett is older, and there is viable replacements on the roster for him. Not sure Kam can be replaced as easily, and is a difference maker every bit as much as Bennett. Add in that it's cheaper to pay a top salaried safety than it is a DE and I'm not sure how the choice is remotely clear.

That's what I say. Sure Bennett is a good DE, but he is not dominant like Jacob Green, or others we have had.

[NorthHawk]

And yet Bennett can create pressure from the inside which is something all defensive teams need. How many times have we discussed over the years the need for pressure up the middle?
He's not just a DE as we conventionally think. He's a rare bird in that he can play multiple roles at a very high level.
The fact is we would struggle to replace either player.

[HumanCockroach]

I'm not dismissing Bennetts ability in the least, I'm merely looking at all of the factors. Chancellor is cheaper, younger and despite Bennett's effectiveness, there IS currently "replacements" on the roster ( Clark and Marsh to name just two, as well as quite a few young DT's who's forte is creating pressure from the middle. I won't claim they WILL replace that production, like I said they are young so who knows?)... With Chancellor, there ISN'T that guy, and if you question that you can certainly pop in the first four games from last season.

I would love both to remain, but I don't feel that's realistic. Ultimately I personally believe the $$$$ will be the difference, Seattle can AFFORD to pay a "top" salary for a safety, I wouldn't say the same for a DE ( have you seen the crazy contracts being signed by DE's recently? 8m a year is a LOT for a safety, but it isn't 14m a year and IMHO that matters).

[FolkCrusader]

Bennett's skill set will likely last longer. He is already nearly unblockable at times. That is not because of strength and size. It's his unworldly hands and ability to gain an advantage with snap counts. He'll e a $20 million a year player and likely will be able to play well in to his 30s.

Kam already had a lesser year last year. Maybe the holdout had something to do that but if he wants $10 million a year he's definitely going to have to have a better year. Overall though, I don't see his skill set going well in to his 30s.

[HumanCockroach]

Hopefully for Bennett's sake since he's already 30 and will be 31 during this season if he wants that fat contract. Been a lot of DEs, and some play "well into their 30's", while I absolutely respect Bennett, I'm not sure I would place him in the "generational" elites.

[obiken]

I just have to say that its one of those rare moments where we finally have River where we have always wanted him!!

[RiverDog]

Bennett's skill set will likely last longer. He is already nearly unblockable at times. That is not because of strength and size. It's his unworldly hands and ability to gain an advantage with snap counts. He'll e a $20 million a year player and likely will be able to play well in to his 30s.

Kam already had a lesser year last year. Maybe the holdout had something to do that but if he wants $10 million a year he's definitely going to have to have a better year. Overall though, I don't see his skill set going well in to his 30s.

This.

I think that Bennett is one of the top DE's in the game that can play inside as well as outside. IMO Kam has peaked and the position he plays isn't as important to the team as the role Bennett fills.

The age thing doesn't factor in with me. Our future is now. Give me another 2-3 years of Michael Bennett. Screw Kam. He's a selfish SOB anyway.

[HumanCockroach]

Well throw Bennett ( and every single person who's ever asked for a raise) into that selfish SOB mix as well then.

Absolutely ridiculous.

[obiken]

I think that Bennett is one of the top DE's in the game that can play inside as well as outside. IMO Kam has peaked and the position he plays isn't as important to the team as the role Bennett fills.

The age thing doesn't factor in with me. Our future is now. Give me another 2-3 years of Michael Bennett. Screw Kam. He's a selfish SOB anyway.

Wow such anger!! Seriously River, replacing Kam would be harder than replacing Bennett.

[HumanCockroach]

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/16 ... fl-players

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/playerstats?playerId=12762

[c_hawkbob]

Though they have a reputation for being mercurial, they actually have the most dependable, consistent production of any position group. The average AV, incredibly, rises consistently from the first year to the 16th!

So much for the DE's last longer than DB's argument ...

And put me down for agreeing that Kam would be harder to replace than Bennett.

[RiverDog]

Wow such anger!! Seriously River, replacing Kam would be harder than replacing Bennett.

I'm not angry, obi. I just don't like the guy anymore, not after what he did to us with his completely unjustified holdout.

The argument shouldn't be who's going to be harder to replace. It should be who would we miss more, which isn't the same in my way of thinking. Bennett is at the peak of his game and plays a higher value position (DE vs. strong safety) than Kam does. He's effective against both the run and the pass, can play inside as well as outside. Kam's had his problems recently. I don't think we'd miss him as much as we would Bennett.

We're set up for another two or three SB runs so my focus is taking advantage of our "window" by putting the best possible team on the field in 2016 and 2017. If Kam wants to join the party, then he's more than welcome, but I'm not in the mood to be held hostage by him again.

[c_hawkbob]

Saying that one might be harder to replace but the other "missed more" is convoluted at best. It's always about who's harder to replace.

[obiken]

Saying that one might be harder to replace but the other "missed more" is convoluted at best. It's always about who's harder to replace.

I agree CB, I understand his feelings, it was bad timing, he settled a year too early. Geez after seeing Sub par NBA players making more than RW, its all starting to make me puke.

[Agent 86]

Well Bennett is chiming in again......seriously, it's the deal you signed, the one your agent negotiated. I totally understand where he is coming from and how he feels, it sucks to others get paid a lot more than you when you feel you are better than them.

But does he not get that because of his deal, others were able to be signed and the team is a lot better because of it. Having players on great deals is such a huge factor for management, it's a huge reason a Super Bowl was brought to the city of Seattle. It's what management relies on.

It's all about ego at this point. Hopefully by training camp, ego is put aside. So glad Schneider/Pete didn't cave into Kam last year, they will have to do the same with Bennett for at least another year.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000676030/article/bennett-get-rid-of-me-if-you-dont-think-im-valuable

[NorthHawk]

I can see the idea that if you sign a contract you should live up to it, but since the management doesn't have to live up to that ideal, I can understand the players wanting to renegotiate.
After all, if mgmt decides to go in a different direction with another philosophy, they can terminate the deal in a heartbeat. It would cost them some of the contract value, but not the entire terms.

Perhaps players should go for shorter term deals, or demand more in guarantees. I think the guarantees is where we might end up in the longer term.

[c_hawkbob]

I can see the idea that if you sign a contract you should live up to it, but since the management doesn't have to live up to that ideal, I can understand the players wanting to renegotiate.
After all, if mgmt decides to go in a different direction with another philosophy, they can terminate the deal in a heartbeat. It would cost them some of the contract value, but not the entire terms.

Perhaps players should go for shorter term deals, or demand more in guarantees. I think the guarantees is where we might end up in the longer term.

Right, if the contracts were guaranteed the "you signed the contract, now live up to it" argument would hold water, but as of now the only thing the typical NFL player is guaranteed is his signing bonus. Thus the want of a renegotiated contract and the accompanying bonus as often as they can get away with.

[burrrton]

Russell Wilson should hold out for a new contract- after all, he's arguably 'outplaying' it and look at what Luck just signed for.

[edit]

I don't get this "If the team can cut him, then he shouldn't have to honor his contract, either", as if being 'fired' is some kind of unique slight only NFL players risk (perhaps even a violation of some code of ethics).

I had a contract with a previous company to work for a certain negotiated salary for 2 years, but there was always a minimum level of performance required of me, and if I didn't meet that fairly high expectation, I could be let go.

Would you all have felt sorry for me had I brought it up? Was I being taken advantage of in some way? Should I have felt justified in not showing up to work if they didn't increase my salary if I beat the deadline for a deliverable?

Of course not! So why do we think some of the most privileged 'employees' in the history of mankind are owed that if a working-class sap like me is not?

[edit2]

And I'll say again, as I do every time this subject comes up: I have *zero* problem with a player (or any employee) requesting more money and/or renegotiation and/or anything else. My problem only lies with players refusing to play, and possibly that "woe is me look at what a victim of the system I am" attitude.

[HumanCockroach]

And you act as though asking for a raise or more compensation is something unique to professional athletes. Since the employer has the "right" to fire an employee, just like any other employer, I suppose they and fans who are more upset about the $$'s they make than attempting to negotiate higher compensation ( just like you or I or anyone else has done numerous times throughout our lives) need to learn to cope. Plenty of employees CAN and DO refuse to work for an employer with a contract in place. Garbage men, police officers, teachers, machinists... The list is incredibly long and extensive anyone claiming it's unique or that it's "selfish" really should look around the United States more.

This insistence that people under contract never renegotiate or refuse to work while under contract is bunk.

[burrrton]

And you act as though asking for a raise or more compensation is something unique to professional athletes.

HC, I *specifically* indicated this isn't something I have an issue with.

This insistence that people under contract never renegotiate or refuse to work while under contract is bunk.

Why, it's almost as if you didn't read anything I wrote. Imagine my surprise.

Plenty of employees CAN and DO refuse to work for an employer with a contract in place. Garbage men, police officers, teachers, machinists... The list is incredibly long and extensive anyone claiming it's unique or that it's "selfish" really should look around the United States more.

??

You're referencing *strikes* (those are all unions) and typically, strikes take place when new contracts haven't been *reached or agreed to*, not when they suddenly decide they don't like the terms they signed onto halfway through the contract, and I don't have the same issue with striking employees as I have with holdouts.

But yeah, if Kennewick School District teachers sign onto a 6-year contract in 2012, then decide in 2015 they don't like it after all, I won't spare them my ire, either, and I truly can't see why you would.

[HumanCockroach]

LOL. Pre tell please explain to us all what this "minimum" performance is for athletes? A player can be ( and often IS) cut not due to a lack of minimum performance, but because the employer decides he doesn't want to pay the employee the AGREED upon salary, DESPITE the employee fulfilling ALL of the required performance minimums. If your employer not only did that to you, but made a HABIT of doing it, something tells me your position would be quite different.

This theory of the player isn't performing and so he was fired do to the lack of said performance is also bunk. Players get cut far more often because of various reasons ( to expensive, to old, rookie drafted to replace them, injured while performing their job etc).

As for unions, strikes occur when in contract as well as when the original contract end without agreement, you can add in individual contracts as well ( Microsoft, Amazon etc) have "independant" contracted personnel that can and do seek compensation, refuse to work ( hold out) etc while in contract.

Teachers ROUTINELY strike while IN contract because of agreed upon obligations not being fulfilled or a lack of financing.

The truth is( and you brought this specific thing up in your response) it is the privilege you feel these players have, that makes the ire and standards they are held to DIFFERENT from regular workers. Nothing more and nothing less. For lack of a better term, jealousy.

[burrrton]

LOL. Pre tell please explain to us all what this "minimum" performance is for athletes? \

Er, the same as it is for anyone else- management's judgement of your performance against your salary.

Honest question: is that really a mystery to you?? It's the art of management. You know, just like for every other worker on the planet.

This theory of the player isn't performing and so he was fired do to the lack of said performance is also bunk. Players get cut far more often because of various reasons ( to expensive, to old, rookie drafted to replace them, injured while performing their job etc).

*too*

Too expensive is exactly the same as me.

Too old is related to performance for the position- exactly the same as me.

Injury is related to performance- exactly the same as me (if I get an RSI and can't do my job anymore, I'm out the door).

For lack of a better term, jealousy.

LOL. Hate to break it to you, but it's you trying to pretend they hold some esteemed position in our society that shouldn't be subject to any of the same factors the rest of the planet deals with.

You're essentially arguing "WHY SHOULD THEY BE EXPECTED TO HONOR A CONTRACT IF THEY CAN BE FIRED?!?" It's ridiculous.

And if being paid more in a year than virtually *any* American will earn in a *lifetime* to play a kid's game isn't "privileged", what is? Even they, to a man, would tell people like you it's a privilege to play in the NFL.

[edit]

And regarding your point about unions striking 'in contract'- your examples entail them arguing the contract not being fulfilled (obligations not being fulfilled, etc). That's not really what we're talking about in the case of a holdout, is it?

[HumanCockroach]

The only person placing any "esteemed" criteria on these athletes is you. Whether it be professing their privileged employee status that somehow in your world equates to different criteria than the rest of the "average" workers ( you used your" poor "self as an example). I hold zero grudge against an employee attempting to maximize their income or value. It IS the American way. I also am never, ever going to agree with this retarded notion that an employee is a bad person for not honoring a contract that the second party has little to no interest in honoring themselves.

I doubt very seriously that if your employer showed up on Monday and told you any of the examples you listed was a reason to can you, you would be as understanding as you from the outside continue to profess you are about other people, in another world ( one you do NOT understand despite continued assertions to the contrary) doing something you have zero idea about doing yourself, what the cost is, the work involved, time etc.

Again, jealousy is the most appropriate word. An employee is an employee, and personally I view them as such. The ONLY individual placing different importance on these particular employees is you...

Edit: I'm NOT arguing anything of the sort. I'm arguing why chastise an employee for not honoring a contract that isn't worth the price of the paper it's printed on.

You're basically arguing "keep your promise until someone else decides to sh#t on it, because they are paying you... For now"

Edit 2: my brother who now is in charge of firewalls for the entire Asian market for Century link, renegotiated his contract with Microsoft several years ago 6 months in to a 2 year contract and did so successfully. Your claim that this doesn't happen in regular life is completely inaccurate and false.

In my brothers case it was because other employees got signed shortly after him for significantly more money, he got the reworked contract done by? Refusing to work until they corrected that discrepancy. It was all of a day, but in essence he "held out" and got an adjusted contract.

[burrrton]

The only person placing any "esteemed" criteria on these athletes is you.

*sigh* HC, I'm the one expecting them to accept the same rules of life the rest of us live by. That's the *opposite* of holding them in "esteem", and this wouldn't have to be explained to you if you didn't argue like a 3rd-grader.

You're basically arguing "keep your promise until someone else decides to sh#t on it, because they are paying you... For now"

It's not a "promise". They're not your parents, for fck's sake. It's a contract, something adults are expected to deal with in predictable ways. That apparently baffles you.

You're boring and slow, HC. Lord plese get this season started so there's someone else posting... #Muted

[HumanCockroach]

Only you Burton have brought up how privileged these athletes are, no one else. At no point have I said they shouldn't handle their employment the same as everyone else, again that was you. In fact I went out of my way to give examples of how regular people, in regular life ALSO handled contracts in similar ways.

At no point have I insulted you, and as far as I'm concerned, if you indeed # muted me, great. I deal with enough pompous, over inflated egotistical a##es in my life, not going to miss one more. Good riddance.

[burrrton]

I would not be at all surprised to see Bennett get a contract extension before the season starts.

Lost in all the nonsense is that- I think they'll extend him, too, and for the reasons you stated. He's been vocal about being underpaid (in which he's not alone, but he's not wrong, either), but has honored his contract like he should.

Fingers crossed.

[monkey]

Because of his versatility, his value is super high, what worries me when people talk contract extension however, is his age. How many years does he have left at this level of production? I'm glad I'm not the one who has to try to figure that out. Especially in light of the amount of money being thrown at guys who can pass rush from inside right now.
If you make a mistake with Bennett's contract, it has a high probability of being a VERY big one either way. If you underpay him and he feels insulted, you lose a guy that you cannot truly replace. If you over pay, or give him too many years, you end up paying huge money for a guy who is in decline, and not worth the contract. And you can't say, well, he gave you a bargain for a while, so over paying him equals out. It doesn't. He signed the contract he signed, then outperformed it. That's great for the team, but it's not like Bennett isn't getting paid a crap load of money either. He is. The market value for him if he were a free agent would clearly be high, but he's NOT a free agent, and that's because he willingly signed a contract.
Personally, I'm sick of hearing him whine about the millions he gets paid, I don't really care if he feels undervalued. He is, if you look at the market, but that's no one's fault other than his own. He chose security with a team that has a chance to win Super Bowls, over big money with some team that will be happy to win four games.
Be a man and deal with it.

[NorthHawk]

That kind of be a man and suck it up attitude is what causes players to leave unnecessarily.
His age is a factor, but how long will our window be open? I suspect for a few more years so do you sign him to a long term deal knowing at the end it won't matter for the last few years or do you let him go when he is at or near the top of his game and could be the difference between another Super Bowl or not?
It's not an easy decision to make.

[HumanCockroach]

Sometimes long term viability means making those hard calls well. It's what NE has been doing with veteran players for the last 15 years, regardless of how much they have meant to the team and its fans, eventually a player just doesn't have it anymore. Always better to lose a productive, even great player a year or two to soon than three years to late. Nature of the beast.

I'm not claiming to know how Bennett or Kam will play over the next 5 to 7 years, I'm pointing out that with the market it will be cheaper to retain Kam, he's younger by almost 4 years, and unlike Bennett there is no one, absolutely no one on this roster that can fill his role. It doesn't mean they can't find or draft one in the next two years, just that right now there ARE players sitting behind Bennett that can create pressure in the roles he fills. It might take two or three guys, but they are already here.

[burrrton]

How many years does he have left at this level of production? I'm glad I'm not the one who has to try to figure that out.

Agree, but I have trouble believing his decline is imminent when he just finished his best season as a pro and was/is currently considered one of the best in the NFL.

Seems a few more years at a high level shouldn't be considered unlikely anyway.

It's not an easy decision to make.

I don't think it's that hard a decision- you do whatever you can to keep the guy. What Bennett has to understand, though (and to be fair, every indication is that he *does* understand this), is that he's not the only good player on this team and they can't just back dumptrucks of money up to his house without it affecting the team's ability to keep other good players.

I think JS and PC are clever enough to find the money for him, though.

[NorthHawk]

There is something else to consider.
Cliff Avril has said he's only going to play 10 years in the NFL.
This is his 10th year and maybe not coincidentally the final year on his contract.
Can we afford to lose both Avril and Bennett? Does that put pressure on our FO to re-sign Bennett?
I think it does.