HawkShack.com

...for him to sign the biggest football contract ever.

https://www.12up.com/posts/6321390-russ ... jBdL2jOeso

It sounds like we can dispense with any hopes of a home town discount.

So with Frank Clark threatening a holdout, Bobby Wagner's contract coming up next season, and Russell talking about the biggest contract ever, something's gotta give. We can't keep all 3.

Add Jarron Reed into that mix too. I think we will be able to keep at least 3 of the 4. Right now RW’s cap hit is 25 mil, Clark’s is 17, and BWags is 14. RW will probably average 35 mil, but that cap hit won’t go above 35 mil for about 3 years. Clark’s is already at 17 his long term deal will be in the 18-19 range, but again the hit won’t be that high for a few years and BWag’s will be about 17 mil. Even if they get paid what their average is going to be next year (which they probably won’t) that’s only about 16 mil more than they are paying for those players this year. With the cap going up about 10 mil that’s only 6 mil more than what this year would be. The reality though is if we sign all three of those guys to long term contracts their combined cap hits will be about 5 mil more than this year- if the cap goes up 10 mil that would actually free up 5 mil next year. Jarron Reed on the other hand is going to get paid. If we keep him his salary will go up at least 15 million- maybe more. Even if we F-tag him next year it’s going to cost 13 mil more than we are paying him this year. That’s why it is so critical that we get some of these guys locked up this year, just in case we have to use the F-Tag next year. Another thing to look at would be trading either Reed or Clark if you know you can’t keep both.

RiverDog wrote:...for him to sign the biggest football contract ever.

https://www.12up.com/posts/6321390-russ ... jBdL2jOeso

It sounds like we can dispense with any hopes of a home town discount.

So with Frank Clark threatening a holdout, Bobby Wagner's contract coming up next season, and Russell talking about the biggest contract ever, something's gotta give. We can't keep all 3.

I've been saying for years that this comes with the territory of extremely competitive people. The want to be the best and win at everything.
It's great on the field, but it also extends to the business side of sports and nobody should be surprised that they all want to be paid the most.

It's also why I think at some point the NFL will propose something to mitigate the Cap hit for, in this case QB's, but one player on a team.

I knew when I saw him say that on the Jimmy Fallon show that there was going to a rash of hand wringing articles about it ...

mykc14 wrote:Another thing to look at would be trading either Reed or Clark if you know you can’t keep both.

If it's true that Clark is talking about holding out, the Hawks would be fools not to at least entertain offers for a trade.

NorthHawk wrote:It's also why I think at some point the NFL will propose something to mitigate the Cap hit for, in this case QB's, but one player on a team.

I agree 100%. So long as they have a hard salary floor that's not too far from the cap, I can't see why the union wouldn't go along with a reasonable percentage, say somewhere around 15%. Under that scenario, the owners would still be spending essentially the same amount on salaries.

c_hawkbob wrote:I knew when I saw him say that on the Jimmy Fallon show that there was going to a rash of hand wringing articles about it …

As BTO once said, "You ain't seen nothing yet". With Russell's obvious personal appeal (do you ever see him not smiling?), if we don't get him extended by the start of training camp this season, we're going to have to be dealing with scores of articles and rumors about his future, especially if the Giants or other QB-needy teams don't take a QB in the first round of this year's draft. It will be even more intense and extended than when Peyton Manning was a free agent.

NorthHawk wrote: I think at some point the NFL will propose something to mitigate the Cap hit for, in this case QB's, but one player on a team.

I think mitigating, or doing away with altogether, cap hits for injured players is going to be an issue in the upcoming CBA. Make it so teams can keep injured players on their roster and pay them their full contract without penalizing the team for doing so. Better for the players, better for the team. I can only imagine that it's not that way now because of the cost to the owners.

c_hawkbob wrote:I knew when I saw him say that on the Jimmy Fallon show that there was going to a rash of hand wringing articles about it …

RiverDog wrote:As BTO once said, "You ain't seen nothing yet". With Russell's obvious personal appeal (do you ever see him not smiling?), if we don't get him extended by the start of training camp this season, we're going to have to be dealing with scores of articles and rumors about his future, especially if the Giants or other QB-needy teams don't take a QB in the first round of this year's draft. It will be even more intense and extended than when Peyton Manning was a free agent.

Yeah Fallon was practically begging Russ to go to the Giants ... Russ' response was "I'm not sure the Seahawks are going to let me get away" ... hopefully he knows something about an impending extension we don't.

if we don't get him extended by the start of training camp this season, we're going to have to be dealing with scores of articles and rumors about his future, especially if the Giants or other QB-needy teams don't take a QB in the first round of this year's draft. It will be even more intense and extended than when Peyton Manning was a free agent.

I'm not sure he wants to sign a new contract this year and we don't have the Cap room at this point, either. The cost will go up next year, and the FT is guaranteed money, so maybe he's playing the waiting game.

c_hawkbob wrote:... hopefully he knows something about an impending extension we don't.

Yeah it seems like they can’t be that far off. The parameters are basically in place. Maybe the Hawks try to low-ball, maybe RW is going to push to get his 40/yr but it seems like logic will prevail at a 35ish mil/year deal as a 3 or 4 year extension. The guarantees and things like that are still up in the air, but he will probably get around 100 mill guaranteed.

c_hawkbob wrote:Yeah Fallon was practically begging Russ to go to the Giants ... Russ' response was "I'm not sure the Seahawks are going to let me get away" ... hopefully he knows something about an impending extension we don't.

That's probably a reference to the franchise tag, of which Russell said that he wouldn't have a problem with. I wouldn't assume that his comments means that we're close to a deal.

No more an assumption than "That's probably a reference to the franchise tag". Besides, I didn't state as an assumption (as you did) I said "hopefully" ...

c_hawkbob wrote:No more an assumption than "That's probably a reference to the franchise tag". Besides, I didn't state as an assumption (as you did) I said "hopefully" ...

Yea, you're probably right. I was speaking more for myself than I was for you.

mykc14 wrote:Add Jarron Reed into that mix too. I think we will be able to keep at least 3 of the 4. Right now RW’s cap hit is 25 mil, Clark’s is 17, and BWags is 14. RW will probably average 35 mil, but that cap hit won’t go above 35 mil for about 3 years. Clark’s is already at 17 his long term deal will be in the 18-19 range, but again the hit won’t be that high for a few years and BWag’s will be about 17 mil. Even if they get paid what their average is going to be next year (which they probably won’t) that’s only about 16 mil more than they are paying for those players this year. With the cap going up about 10 mil that’s only 6 mil more than what this year would be. The reality though is if we sign all three of those guys to long term contracts their combined cap hits will be about 5 mil more than this year- if the cap goes up 10 mil that would actually free up 5 mil next year. Jarron Reed on the other hand is going to get paid. If we keep him his salary will go up at least 15 million- maybe more. Even if we F-tag him next year it’s going to cost 13 mil more than we are paying him this year. That’s why it is so critical that we get some of these guys locked up this year, just in case we have to use the F-Tag next year. Another thing to look at would be trading either Reed or Clark if you know you can’t keep both.

Russell has a choice, be Tom Brady, or Aaron Rogers, I think he has chosen AR. Sad, he is not a saint or evil, he is just a normal player. I wouldn't pay it, but that's just me.

I've been thinking that if we re-signed him, he would be a big hit to this years Cap.
I'm doubting that now as an extension could average it out so it's less impact.

However, unless we want to see a similar situation as ET where we just let him go in FA for a 3rd round Comp pick,
we have to find out if he will sign for somewhere around $40 million ave/year. If he wants to play the Tag game and
bet on himself not being injured, we might have to seriously look at trading him now. He's in his prime, and we could
get quite a haul of picks for him. The downside is obviously losing a Franchise QB, and they are difficult to find, but
if we F-Tag him and then he goes to FA, we get a single 3rd round comp pick and still be looking for another Franchise
QB.

If we franchise tag RW, I read that it would be around $30M for the first year and about $36M for the second tag. Averaging $33M.

Now I know many of you will jump on me for this but I say we do that and then let him walk for the 3rd rd. pick. I mean, c'mon, we run the ball more than 50% of the time so the QB position is not as pivotal on our team as it is on others. Give RW another 3 years in the league and he'll lose another step taking away his run threat even more. At that point, we can go get another mobile QB to replace him. In fact, we'll have 3 years to find that guy if they go into with eyes wide open. In fact, we can concentrate the money on the Oline to support the run even more over that time, too.

idhawkman wrote:Now I know many of you will jump on me for this but I say we do that and then let him walk for the 3rd rd. pick. I mean, c'mon, we run the ball more than 50% of the time so the QB position is not as pivotal on our team as it is on others. Give RW another 3 years in the league and he'll lose another step taking away his run threat even more. At that point, we can go get another mobile QB to replace him. In fact, we'll have 3 years to find that guy if they go into with eyes wide open. In fact, we can concentrate the money on the Oline to support the run even more over that time, too.

Why would we let him walk? I hope it doesn't come to it, but If we can't sign him to a long term agreement, we can trade him for one heck of a lot more than a 3rd round comp pick. We're looking at a minimum of two first rounders.

I'm not so sure Pete's Offense requires a mobile QB.
That Russell is one is a bonus, but look at the QBs he's had in College and you see Palmer (statue), Sanchez and Leinart (slightly mobile), and Josh David Booty (not sure about him).
In the NFL he had Drew Bledsoe.
None of these guys were like Wilson. Not many are and if they throw a good deep ball and make the right calls at the LoS, they can be very successful.

If we want to make a big push for Wilson, how about offering a 10 year deal at $400 Million with $300 Million guaranteed.
It would make him the highest paid QB and he will get about 1/3 of a billion dollars guaranteed and we would get him for
a Cap hit of around $40 Million or less. In 5 or 6 years, it will seem inexpensive.

Why would we let him walk? I hope it doesn't come to it, but If we can't sign him to a long term agreement, we can trade him for one heck of a lot more than a 3rd round comp pick. We're looking at a minimum of two first rounders.

That's if he doesn't want to sign an extension and is tagged. I think the 3rd tag is around $50 Million and the 2nd would be somewhere around $40 Million.
I read somewhere that if he is tagged 3 times, he would get in the neighborhood of $110 Million. Therefore, the negotiations have to start above that
to keep him.

NorthHawk wrote:
That's if he doesn't want to sign an extension and is tagged. I think the 3rd tag is around $50 Million and the 2nd would be somewhere around $40 Million.
I read somewhere that if he is tagged 3 times, he would get in the neighborhood of $110 Million. Therefore, the negotiations have to start above that
to keep him.

I would say there is no way they would tag him 3 times... that means his cap hit would jump almost 20 million between the 2nd and 3rd tag. Here’s what his total would be over the next 3 years if we tag him twice: 2019: 17 mil (it also has a 25 mil cap hit) 2020: tag 1 30 million (all cap hit); tag 2 36 million... so over the next 3 years he would make 83 million... if we sign him to a 3 year extension at 35 mil/year he would make 123 million over 4 years- which is a better deal with far less risk. What that extension wouldn’t do is use up the F-tags, which might make an extension without a clause stipulating that the Hawks can’t use the F-Tag might not happen.

You guys are forgetting one little thing: The current CBA ends after the 2020 season, so how do you know that the franchise tag will even exist for us to be able to tag Russell in 2021 and beyond let alone be able to assign monetary values to it?

Then why sign anyone to more than a 2 year deal?
You have to go with what you know at the present, so those are what he would expect.
If the tag is removed after this CBA, he will be a FA almost right away, but I'm not sure
what the owners would want from the players to compensate for no Tags. It might not
be worth it to one or either side to make that kind of deal.

I still think a long term contract with high guarantees would be too tempting for Russell
to pass by.

NorthHawk wrote:Then why sign anyone to more than a 2 year deal?

I wasn't speaking of signing anyone. My point was that you guys were talking about the tag options as if it were viable strategy when the fact is that we can only count on tagging him once, in 2020.

NorthHawk wrote:I still think a long term contract with high guarantees would be too tempting for Russell to pass by.

Perhaps. Russell's been a little coy about the subject, and there's the whole matter of his wife's input that we aren't privy to. As a fan, I've been jaded before by athletes I thought were sincere, ie Alex Rodriguez and Steve Hutchinson. It's left me with a significant mistrust of the modern professional athlete and their stated motivations.

RiverDog wrote:You guys are forgetting one little thing: The current CBA ends after the 2020 season, so how do you know that the franchise tag will even exist for us to be able to tag Russell in 2021 and beyond let alone be able to assign monetary values to it?

Im not forgetting about it I just don’t think they will do away with it, at least not immediately. I imagine that if they do get rid of it they will slowly- Over a 2 to 3 year period get rid of it. The tag is too important to the owners and players are beginning to see how they can manipulate it to their advantage. I could be wrong, but I think the Hawks will certainly be able to tag RW twice.

RiverDog wrote:You guys are forgetting one little thing: The current CBA ends after the 2020 season, so how do you know that the franchise tag will even exist for us to be able to tag Russell in 2021 and beyond let alone be able to assign monetary values to it?

mykc14 wrote:Im not forgetting about it I just don’t think they will do away with it, at least not immediately. I imagine that if they do get rid of it they will slowly- Over a 2 to 3 year period get rid of it. The tag is too important to the owners and players are beginning to see how they can manipulate it to their advantage. I could be wrong, but I think the Hawks will certainly be able to tag RW twice.

It's not implausible to suggest that a new CBA might include a clause that teams can tag a specific player just once, and if they made a change like that retroactive (I can think of at least 4 teams that would go for it being applied in that manner) and assuming we tagged Russell in 2020, would make him a free agent.

The uncertainty of the CBA is one of the primary reasons why, if we've decided that paying a franchise QB a high percentage of the payroll is the way to go, that I want to see us extend Russell now even if it means giving him a contract a little higher than would normally be the case.

It's not implausible to suggest that a new CBA might include a clause that teams can tag a specific player just once, and if they made a change like that retroactive (I can think of at least 4 teams that would go for it being applied in that manner) and assuming we tagged Russell in 2020, would make him a free agent

What teams do you think would want to modify or eliminate the FT?
The owners negotiated it originally and have defended it ever since.
If they do agree to remove the FT, what would the players give up in return?
I'm not sure the players would be willing to pay the price of removing it.

It's not implausible to suggest that a new CBA might include a clause that teams can tag a specific player just once, and if they made a change like that retroactive (I can think of at least 4 teams that would go for it being applied in that manner) and assuming we tagged Russell in 2020, would make him a free agent

NorthHawk wrote:What teams do you think would want to modify or eliminate the FT?

I didn't say any would want to modify or eliminate them. What I was suggesting was that if they had to modify or eliminate the tag that some teams, knowing the situation the Hawks are in with Russell, would not stand in the way of allowing those changes to be retroactive, specifically the Rams, Cards, Niners, and any teams that might be interested in signing Russell, such as the Giants.

NorthHawk wrote:The owners negotiated it (the FT) originally and have defended it ever since. If they do agree to remove the FT, what would the players give up in return?

An 18 game schedule, a more restrictive salary cap, eliminate the salary floor, etc.

NorthHawk wrote:I'm not sure the players would be willing to pay the price of removing it.

Probably not, but if I had a franchise QB that I wanted to keep, I wouldn't want to count it.

RiverDog wrote:Why would we let him walk? I hope it doesn't come to it, but If we can't sign him to a long term agreement, we can trade him for one heck of a lot more than a 3rd round comp pick. We're looking at a minimum of two first rounders.

I'm not so confident that a team would give that plus the new contract money to RW. That said, I didn't think they would pay ET as much as they did either. I just can't see mortgaging the farm to get one player.

RiverDog wrote:Why would we let him walk? I hope it doesn't come to it, but If we can't sign him to a long term agreement, we can trade him for one heck of a lot more than a 3rd round comp pick. We're looking at a minimum of two first rounders.

idhawkman wrote:I'm not so confident that a team would give that plus the new contract money to RW. That said, I didn't think they would pay ET as much as they did either. I just can't see mortgaging the farm to get one player.

I can't see mortgaging the farm for one player, either. But if we did trade Russell, IMO it would be for more than what the Raiders got for Kahlil Mack.

I still think they have to smoke him out to see if he wants to stay here long term or just get to FA.
So like I suggested earlier, offer him a large contract with a big guarantee.
Something like $400 Million over 10 years with $300 Million guaranteed, or maybe $300 Million over
8 years with $250 Million guaranteed.
If he says no to either of those, then trade him because it's not about financial security or being the
highest paid player in NFL history because he would see in these contracts more than a quarter Billion
or a third Billion dollars when you add in the extra endorsements the notoriety would bring.
And if the FO doesn't believe he's worth 37 to 40 Million dollars/year, then they should trade him now
when he's still on a decent contract for another team to pay the max compensation for him.

NorthHawk wrote:I still think they have to smoke him out to see if he wants to stay here long term or just get to FA.
So like I suggested earlier, offer him a large contract with a big guarantee.
Something like $400 Million over 10 years with $300 Million guaranteed, or maybe $300 Million over
8 years with $250 Million guaranteed.
If he says no to either of those, then trade him because it's not about financial security or being the
highest paid player in NFL history because he would see in these contracts more than a quarter Billion
or a third Billion dollars when you add in the extra endorsements the notoriety would bring.

Well, hopefully we don't have to "smoke him out" to gauge his interest in staying here, but I basically agree with what you're saying.

NorthHawk wrote:And if the FO doesn't believe he's worth 37 to 40 Million dollars/year, then they should trade him now when he's still on a decent contract for another team to pay the max compensation for him.

That's been my contention all along. I want something done this year, preferably before the season starts. Make him our absolute best offer this July and if he doesn't bite, then trade him...providing we can get at least two #1's.

That's been my contention all along. I want something done this year, preferably before the season starts. Make him our absolute best offer this July and if he doesn't bite, then trade him...providing we can get at least two #1's.

If it should come to pass, we should be able to get more than what the Bears paid for Mack
which was first-round selections in 2019 and 2020, a sixth-rounder next year and a third-rounder in 2020. Oakland also included its second-round selection in 2020 and a conditional fifth-rounder that year.

A Super Bowl winning, Pro Bowl QB who doesn't throw a lot of interceptions should go for more.

RiverDog wrote:That's been my contention all along. I want something done this year, preferably before the season starts. Make him our absolute best offer this July and if he doesn't bite, then trade him...providing we can get at least two #1's.

NorthHawk wrote:If it should come to pass, we should be able to get more than what the Bears paid for Mack
which was first-round selections in 2019 and 2020, a sixth-rounder next year and a third-rounder in 2020. Oakland also included its second-round selection in 2020 and a conditional fifth-rounder that year.

A Super Bowl winning, Pro Bowl QB who doesn't throw a lot of interceptions should go for more.

Agreed. I was just stating the absolute minimum I'd swallow a trade for, and those two picks out to be at least top 15. One could reasonably expect more along the lines of what you've suggested.

There's a lot of other variables, not the least of which would be who would we get to replace him. I certainly don't want to go through another couple of years like we did with Clipboard Jesus and TJack.

NorthHawk wrote:And if the FO doesn't believe he's worth 37 to 40 Million dollars/year, then they should trade him now when he's still on a decent contract for another team to pay the max compensation for him.

RiverDog wrote:That's been my contention all along. I want something done this year, preferably before the season starts. Make him our absolute best offer this July and if he doesn't bite, then trade him...providing we can get at least two #1's.

Politically, I don't think the front office can trade him while he's still on this current contract. The fans would fry them if they did that no matter what or how logical their reasoning would be.

IDHM I dont think it really matters at this point. River is right, we are going to be the NW Packers IF we sign him, or back in the wilderness, IF we don't.

Politically?

I don't see the problem with being the NW Packers. They are competitive most years. With some good defensive coaching, would probably be better than they've been. Not like the Packers haven't been one of the better teams in the NFL during the Rodgers years.

It's real strange when the only acceptable outcome is the single best team in NFL history, as in no one has done as well as New England ever. So this idea we're going to be as good as New England if Russ takes less money is a pipedream. It's only happened once and will likely never happen again. The Packers are in no way chopped liver or some lower tier team for having signed Rodgers.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't see the problem with being the NW Packers. They are competitive most years. With some good defensive coaching, would probably be better than they've been. Not like the Packers haven't been one of the better teams in the NFL during the Rodgers years.

It's real strange when the only acceptable outcome is the single best team in NFL history, as in no one has done as well as New England ever. So this idea we're going to be as good as New England if Russ takes less money is a pipedream. It's only happened once and will likely never happen again. The Packers are in no way chopped liver or some lower tier team for having signed Rodgers.

IMO you can't compare our team structure to the Packers. Unlike Green Bay, Pete's philosophy is a run first, defensive orientated team. I'm not so sure we can be competitive as the Packers have been under the constraints of having to finance the highest paid player in the game.

That's why I'm deferring to Pete on this matter. If he thinks he can still be competitive by signing Russell to a $40m per year contract, then he'll do it. If not, he won't.

That's why a longer term contract with a big guarantee would work.
Consider 8 years and $300 Million with $250 Million Guaranteed.
The Cap hit isn't that bad at $37.5 Million average/year. In 5 years or less it will be cheap.
Wilson gets to be the highest paid QB for a few years and probably will be the
player with the largest contract for quite a while.

NorthHawk wrote:That's why a longer term contract with a big guarantee would work.
Consider 8 years and $300 Million with $250 Million Guaranteed.
The Cap hit isn't that bad at $37.5 Million average/year. In 5 years or less it will be cheap.
Wilson gets to be the highest paid QB for a few years and probably will be the
player with the largest contract for quite a while.

Guaranteeing a contract like that could be disastrous for the cap if he were to get hurt or if his play were to fall off the face of the earth

Double Post