Salary Cap Increase

[RiverDog]

The expected cap increase by all accounts I have seen was 1 to 2 % this coming year ( 124 to126), not sure where you got your 5 to 10 percent increase as 10% was NEVER discussed anywhere I have seen or heard ( hence the big bump was news worthy). Big difference between 2 million raise and almost 10 million ( or about a Sherman).

It affords them the ability to choose to pay at least one player more than 6 million a year more than was expected, how that translates to nothing in your book is beyond me. The Hawks will indeed still have to make choices, no one has said otherwise, however the choices become less drastic with a larger pull of money to draw from.

Sherman, Wilson and Thomas will more than likely be retained, and instead of drawing 35% of the cap, it will be a LOWER percentage allowing them to retain players like Bennett or Tate, or Baldwin or any other good player that they more than likely would have had to let go. Maybe they can't retain them, as opposed to they definitely can't, but that distinction is significant in my book. Equating multi year multi million dollar contracts to an increase in minimum wage ( something I doubt affects you in any way at this point) makes absolutely NO sense.

Just because you didn't expect such a rise in the salary cap doesn't mean John Schneider was equally as ignorant.

[HumanCockroach]

The expected cap increase by all accounts I have seen was 1 to 2 % this coming year ( 124 to126), not sure where you got your 5 to 10 percent increase as 10% was NEVER discussed anywhere I have seen or heard ( hence the big bump was news worthy). Big difference between 2 million raise and almost 10 million ( or about a Sherman).

It affords them the ability to choose to pay at least one player more than 6 million a year more than was expected, how that translates to nothing in your book is beyond me. The Hawks will indeed still have to make choices, no one has said otherwise, however the choices become less drastic with a larger pull of money to draw from.

Sherman, Wilson and Thomas will more than likely be retained, and instead of drawing 35% of the cap, it will be a LOWER percentage allowing them to retain players like Bennett or Tate, or Baldwin or any other good player that they more than likely would have had to let go. Maybe they can't retain them, as opposed to they definitely can't, but that distinction is significant in my book. Equating multi year multi million dollar contracts to an increase in minimum wage ( something I doubt affects you in any way at this point) makes absolutely NO sense.

Just because you didn't expect such a rise in the salary cap doesn't mean John Schneider was equally as ignorant.

Maybe, maybe not, spare me though. EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE, that reported on the expected salary cap increase, and by that I don't mean "ignorant" fans like myself, but people that report, investigate and make their livings off of the NFL and it's day to day, year to year of the league operations. Idiots like the NFL reporters ( who happen to WORK for the NFL) as well as numerous full time, well respected NFL people. But hell, guess I'm just dumb like that, unlike you I guess, I can cope with that just fine. We'll see if Sherman, Thomas and Wilson all walk, or at least how many even test the damn waters ( kind of doubt ANY of them) and how many "glue" characters are able to be retained with the additional 10 million a year......

[Eaglehawk]

We've tried to find a player who can get pressure from the inside for a while. Now we have one but if Bennett goes, who might replace him? It's not like those types are easy to find.

I agree, replacing Bennett is not going to be easy. Forget about trying to replace him in the draft, we would need another FA like him who we know is good, to come in for a SB ring, and play for some decent but not over the top money, and play out of his mind for one year. Possible, yeah. Probable? If its up to PC and JS I would say anything is possible/probable. These guys can squeeze water out of a rock.

[RiverDog]

The expected cap increase by all accounts I have seen was 1 to 2 % this coming year ( 124 to126), not sure where you got your 5 to 10 percent increase as 10% was NEVER discussed anywhere I have seen or heard ( hence the big bump was news worthy). Big difference between 2 million raise and almost 10 million ( or about a Sherman).

It affords them the ability to choose to pay at least one player more than 6 million a year more than was expected, how that translates to nothing in your book is beyond me. The Hawks will indeed still have to make choices, no one has said otherwise, however the choices become less drastic with a larger pull of money to draw from.

Sherman, Wilson and Thomas will more than likely be retained, and instead of drawing 35% of the cap, it will be a LOWER percentage allowing them to retain players like Bennett or Tate, or Baldwin or any other good player that they more than likely would have had to let go. Maybe they can't retain them, as opposed to they definitely can't, but that distinction is significant in my book. Equating multi year multi million dollar contracts to an increase in minimum wage ( something I doubt affects you in any way at this point) makes absolutely NO sense.

Just because you didn't expect such a rise in the salary cap doesn't mean John Schneider was equally as ignorant.

Maybe, maybe not, spare me though. EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE, that reported on the expected salary cap increase, and by that I don't mean "ignorant" fans like myself, but people that report, investigate and make their livings off of the NFL and it's day to day, year to year of the league operations. Idiots like the NFL reporters ( who happen to WORK for the NFL) as well as numerous full time, well respected NFL people. But hell, guess I'm just dumb like that, unlike you I guess, I can cope with that just fine. We'll see if Sherman, Thomas and Wilson all walk, or at least how many even test the damn waters ( kind of doubt ANY of them) and how many "glue" characters are able to be retained with the additional 10 million a year......

HC, they've been reporting a $126.3M cap expansion for months, and that's way before they announced the CBS/TNF deal a few weeks ago. Do you think that it's possible, or IMO extremely likely, that John Schneider might have been in touch with insiders at the league office, particularly about the CBS/TNF negotiations that had to have been going on for quite some time before the announcement earlier this month, that could have led him to believe that the cap increase was going to be higher than what the media was reporting, and that he might have at least penciled in a budget based on expectations for that kind of an increase?

Wilson ain't walking. I don't care if they freeze or even reduce the cap. John Schneider and Pete Carroll would be hung in effigy if they let him go, and it would be out of character for Russell to make a demand that would force us to let him walk.

And a few extra percent higher budget, something every team in the league gets, is not going to be enough to retain Sherman and Thomas if they are committed to testing the FA waters. As North Hawk explained, it might make a difference in our ability to retain second tier players that aren't going to be all that difficult to replace if we can't afford their demands.

This is just another day at the office type of news. It's not some sort of bonanza that's going to save us from having to break up our team.

[HumanCockroach]

And this just returns us to the point of the assumption that Thomas and Sherman are "set" on testing free agent waters. Since I KNOW that team seldom allow those types of players to do so, I'll wait until they say they are, or do, before assuming Seattle has trouble resigning them. I seriously doubt they ever are aloud to do so ( at least with the next big deal). The percentage of the cap that those contracts eats will go down, with each increase, even if the money paid goes up, which IMHO makes it more palatable to pay and retain not just one, not just two but all three, barring some injury or percipatous drop in play.

How many HUGE top tier players hit free agency each year RD? Just does not happen ( at least young productive stars).

Of course it is possible Schneider knew, hell probably likely, not sure how in your world that changes the importance of it to be able to hold onto good to great players longer than they might have. Keep expecting the worst on that front, I understand the expectation that a Seattle sports team can't or won't pay their stars to keep them, I don't believe that is the case this time, and history of players of this caliber in the NFL getting paid and retained by their team is in my corner.

This isn't Matt Flynn, or Demeco Ryan, or a broken down Tatupu, Manning, or an ancient Reed, we are talking about, not even a Williams coming off a destroyed knee, or a starter that played decently, these are players that are the top 1% and as such the tea, will do everything to retain them, and BECAUSE of the additional money, the percentage will be lower, allowi to retain a player like Bennett or a Tate, or a Baldwin, when they wouldn't have previously, which matters in my book.

By the way, it is interesting how big you are into attack the post not the poster, got all upset when I called you friend and yet here you have no qualms calling me ignorant, guess the gate doesn't swing both ways, eh? No biggee, not going to flee from the board or anything, just found it interesting is all.

[briwas101]

Was a major reason I didn't understand the "panic" about the situation earlier, before knowing what the cap will be, who the Seahawks will pay, how much they will pay them ( not to mention people bundling players that won't have to be re signed in the same years) etc, doesn't make much sense to me. This team IS set up to retain whomever they want in the next several years ( not a "bad" contract that can't be gotten out of with no fuss). If they want to pay Sherman, Thomas, Wilson and hell even Bennett now, they certainly can, and without much stress.

There will be contracts that have to be reduced or cut in the next couple years, but that is the case with EVERY team in the NFL.

I don't know of anyone panicking over the salary cap situation, but we have had every reason to be looking at future cap costs and looking at which players have to go in order to make it work.

As for the comment about no bad contracts that they can't get out of with no fuss, you forgot about Percy Harvin. Not only is he super expensive to keep but he is expensive to cut as well. The Hawks tied up almost 10% of the salary cap in that one player. Definitely not one of Pete and John's good moves.

I also think your comment about panicking kind of involves "moving the goalposts" so to speak. I never wanted Miller or Rice on the team and I have advocated cutting both for a while now and I never liked Red Bryant's contract, but up until now almost no one has agreed with me and has called those players "critical" to the Hawks. A year ago most people on the message boards would say Miller, Rice, Clemons, and Bryant are necessary for our success and that cutting them would be a huge blow to the team.

Now, a year later, those same players are viewed as expendable by more people and suddenly everyone who cared about the salary cap was "panicking" over "nothing".

For the most part, us salary cap hawks have simply been pointing out that players who have been here for a while and were a part of our team's identity in years past are no longer going to fit on the team because of salary and/or performance. The Hawks can't afford to keep a bunch of players whose production fails to match their compensation.

[HumanCockroach]

Was a major reason I didn't understand the "panic" about the situation earlier, before knowing what the cap will be, who the Seahawks will pay, how much they will pay them ( not to mention people bundling players that won't have to be re signed in the same years) etc, doesn't make much sense to me. This team IS set up to retain whomever they want in the next several years ( not a "bad" contract that can't be gotten out of with no fuss). If they want to pay Sherman, Thomas, Wilson and hell even Bennett now, they certainly can, and without much stress.

There will be contracts that have to be reduced or cut in the next couple years, but that is the case with EVERY team in the NFL.

I don't know of anyone panicking over the salary cap situation, but we have had every reason to be looking at future cap costs and looking at which players have to go in order to make it work.

As for the comment about no bad contracts that they can't get out of with no fuss, you forgot about Percy Harvin. Not only is he super expensive to keep but he is expensive to cut as well. The Hawks tied up almost 10% of the salary cap in that one player. Definitely not one of Pete and John's good moves.

I also think your comment about panicking kind of involves "moving the goalposts" so to speak. I never wanted Miller or Rice on the team and I have advocated cutting both for a while now and I never liked Red Bryant's contract, but up until now almost no one has agreed with me and has called those players "critical" to the Hawks. A year ago most people on the message boards would say Miller, Rice, Clemons, and Bryant are necessary for our success and that cutting them would be a huge blow to the team.

Now, a year later, those same players are viewed as expendable by more people and suddenly everyone who cared about the salary cap was "panicking" over "nothing".

For the most part, us salary cap hawks have simply been pointing out that players who have been here for a while and were a part of our team's identity in years past are no longer going to fit on the team because of salary and/or performance. The Hawks can't afford to keep a bunch of players whose production fails to match their compensation.

Ok, let's get this straight out of the gate, it remains to be seen of Harvins contract is a "bad" one, as they can STILL maneuver out of that contract without much fuss, because A) the Seahawks wisely built in protection against injuries, and can void the last 3years, with NO money counting against the cap, meaning it isn't difficult to get out from under after next season, and B) because regardless of how you personally feel about the player, he IS a game changing receiver the likes of which no one in this city, or fan of this team has ever seen ( and no I am NOT forgetting the HOF receiver that ran around for this team for 15 years). As for the other that fans said were "necessary" for the Seahawks success, they WERE indeed necessary, however to pretend like they were, forever, is silly. NO ONE on this board or any other professed them a necessity for the length of their careers or even the length of their contract. If the Hawks have found better alternatives, great, but NONE of those players mentioned creates a SINGLE "dead" dollar with their release, not a one, meaning they can be cut, and will be when necessary, or when a cheaper, and or better player is found.

Watchdog the cap all you want, but it simply does not change the fact that signing Red, or Clemmons, or Miller to those contracts limits Seattle in ANY way in the future. Maybe you preferred to save money and be like Jacksonville, I prefer the SB winning program, to each his own.

The cap isn't static, it's fluid, fortunately, those in charge of it grasp the concept, as without those players who knows if they win it all? If they go so be it. However, each one contributed to a SB win. NOW the Hawk have replacements, before they didn't which made them "necessary" no matter which cheap alternative you preferred.

[RiverDog]

And this just returns us to the point of the assumption that Thomas and Sherman are "set" on testing free agent waters. Since I KNOW that team seldom allow those types of players to do so, I'll wait until they say they are, or do, before assuming Seattle has trouble resigning them. I seriously doubt they ever are aloud to do so ( at least with the next big deal). The percentage of the cap that those contracts eats will go down, with each increase, even if the money paid goes up, which IMHO makes it more palatable to pay and retain not just one, not just two but all three, barring some injury or percipatous drop in play.

How many HUGE top tier players hit free agency each year RD? Just does not happen ( at least young productive stars).

Of course it is possible Schneider knew, hell probably likely, not sure how in your world that changes the importance of it to be able to hold onto good to great players longer than they might have. Keep expecting the worst on that front, I understand the expectation that a Seattle sports team can't or won't pay their stars to keep them, I don't believe that is the case this time, and history of players of this caliber in the NFL getting paid and retained by their team is in my corner.

This isn't Matt Flynn, or Demeco Ryan, or a broken down Tatupu, Manning, or an ancient Reed, we are talking about, not even a Williams coming off a destroyed knee, or a starter that played decently, these are players that are the top 1% and as such the tea, will do everything to retain them, and BECAUSE of the additional money, the percentage will be lower, allowi to retain a player like Bennett or a Tate, or a Baldwin, when they wouldn't have previously, which matters in my book.

By the way, it is interesting how big you are into attack the post not the poster, got all upset when I called you friend and yet here you have no qualms calling me ignorant, guess the gate doesn't swing both ways, eh? No biggee, not going to flee from the board or anything, just found it interesting is all.

No, it doesn't return us to "Sherman and Thomas are set to go on the FA market." I said if they were. Big difference. Where I am not getting through to you isn't that I think that we will ever let them go on the FA market. I don't think we'll ever let it get that far. My point is that the threat of going onto the FA market will have a major effect on their contract negotiations. Believe me, their agents will know what they could get in free agency and will be throwing those numbers at JS.

Here's an analogy I think might help illustrate my point. I don't think my company's workers will ever go on strike, but the threat of a strike damn sure has an effect on contract negotiations, and thus management will calculate the impact of that possibility and adjust their offer(s) accordingly. They have to estimate the cost of a prolonged shutdown, how much it's going to cost to pay utilities and other overhead with no revenue coming in to offset those costs, make contingency plans to hire replacements, adjust production schedules to allow for the possibility of making inventory-critical items at a different plant, and so on. That stuff all has to be worked out well in advance of the contract expiring so they can make smart, informed decisions in the upcoming negotiations.

JS is doing the same sort of thing with ET and RS. He has to take into consideration what the value of our players are if they were to go onto the FA market so he can get an estimate of how much money it's going to take to resign them and start clearing enough space under the cap prior to negotiations, as he's doing now by cutting Rice and Red. He doesn't want to clear too much space as the agents will know how much free space he has to work with and he doesn't want to cut important players unnecessarily.

Sorry about the ignorant comment. I was getting a little unnerved as you seem to be putting words into my mouth that I think ET and RS are going to become free agents. I don't know what it's going to take to get that thought out of your head.

[briwas101]

For what it's worth, I understand exactly where Riverdog is coming from, and technically he's right, though so are the people pointing out the other side.
An increase in the cap is like unexpectedly sunny weather in a game when you thought it would snow or rain...it's nice, but it's equally nice for everyone at the same time. It allows EVERY team more flexibility just as Riv was pointing out.
At the same time, as others pointed out, would you as a free agent player coming off a Superbowl win, rather go to Oakland to play football for 4.7 million, or stay in Seattle for 4.1? Or for that matter, you as a free agent from any other team, same question?
So the additional cap space doesn't really help in one sense, but it does in a different sense precisely because of the environment that's been fostered in Seattle since Pete has arrived.

I'll say this too, people (I am speaking of media members who are constantly selling an angle), who are so worried about us keeping the team together, thinking it cannot be done, still have not learned the lesson that the New England Patriots have been teaching for over a decade now. They've played over a decade of mostly playoff football now, EASILY the most successful team in the modern salary cap era, and we've all seen exactly how they've done it.
They've done it by NOT worrying about keeping the team together!! They've done it by letting go of the obvious players, the Chris Clemons, Sidney Rice, Zack Miller types of players with bloated contracts who are on the wrong side of 30 or injury prone; but they've ALSO done it by oftentimes, letting go of the Golden Tate's and Michael Bennett's as well!
Even though the majority of the fans (and of course the ridiculously stupid media) wanted them to resign those types of players, and kept on predicting the end of their reign if they didn't, the Patriots stuck to what they knew to be true about those guys...they ARE replaceable! If you have a team that is consistently winning, those types of players can easily be replaced by equally young or even younger guys who just want to play for a winner, or guys like Michael Bennett was wanting to get a "prove it" contract, so they could get a big pay day later, or by veteran free agents with one or two years of high level play still left on the tires, (Jered Allen?) wanting to get a ring before retiring or guys who got cut from salary cap strapped teams (Demarcus Ware?) or ultimately, through the draft.

The cold hard truth is, if Bennett costs too much to resign (or Golden Tate or any other free agent for that matter*), then you let him walk and never look back, simple as that, and all those prognosticators saying that he's a "must keep", are fools (most of them the same fools who picked Denver in the Super Bowl, which shows how much they really know...clearly not much!).
Michael Bennett was a good player, who got even much better playing here in Seattle because 1. he was paired with other studs on the D-Line like Avril, and 2. the L.O.B. gives the d-linemen more time to make plays than what they would have on any other team.

Never forget that there are and always will be other players who can also step right in, and do what Bennett did for us, because we still have Cliff Avril and others on that line who are also great at getting to the passer, and because the L.O.B. gives them extra time to do their jobs.
Yes, Bennett is valuable, and OUGHT to be a very high priority, without a doubt, mostly because of his versatility, his ability to play all over the D-Line on any down and distance, but never forget that ultimately, he can be replaced.
The Patriots have shown that you CAN keep a team together and have years and years of success, if you are SMART in the way you go about approaching your own free agents, and I truly feel that the plan John and Pete have for this team free agents, will prove to be just that. Smart.

* The two obvious exceptions being the young franchise QB, Russell Wilson who is an ABSOLUTE must sign, and the defensive leader/QB/guy who makes Pete's scheme work, Earl Thomas. Those two guys you pay. Period. You pay them and keep them, and don't even think about it. Even guys like Richard Sherman though, in spite of being the best corner in the game, if push came to shove and he asked for too much money...well...you gotta let him walk then. Hopefully that won't happen becuase CLEARLY the Seahawks are better off with Sherman even getting paid a bunch, than with

1. I read your whole post. I can't stand people who respond to long posts with TLDR (too long, didn't read) or WOT (wall of text).
2. I really like people who aren't afraid to write long posts. Simple minds struggle to form a paragraph, intelligent minds struggle to stop.
3. I agree with your assessment of the Patriots.

The patriots have remained a good team because they are BRUTAL when it comes to cuts. Thats exactly how a team operating with a salary cap needs to do things. If you are 30+ and your salary doesn't match your production they aren't going to assume that being a year older will somehow make you better. Even if you are on the right side of 30 you will be targeted for replacement if you aren't earning your money.

I have had soooooooo much respect for how the Pats operate. They know that you can't keep a guy like Red Bryant just because he was here for the bad years. You can't keep him just because he is the captain. They don't keep guys around because they are a good locker room presence. They don't keep people around because they want the player to retire with a ring.

They also don't worry about always having a player as good as the one who is being replaced. Sometimes you have to downgrade a position for the year to free up cap space.
Its ok to be a little bit worse at one position if it means you can sign more important players at other positions and keep the overall talent on the team up. Some years their WRs are the stars on offense, other years its the TEs, other years its the RB. They don't have one strict model for success that they are always trying to maintain.

Finally, i would like to say I agree 100% with your opinion about walking away from players when they demand too much. Too often i hear people describe signing a FA as "winning". If you sign him you win, if you don't sign him you lose. Did the Seahawks "win" when we outbid the Vikings for Housh? Did the Seahawks win when we outbid the Vikings for Rice?

Every player has a value. Teams may struggle to gauge that value but every player has a value. If the player demands more than he is worth then you wish him good luck with whatever team signs him.

[depaashaas]

Wow cap is rising to 133 mil and they are expecting a other big jump for 2015. Now this does not mean they can sign everyone they want as every team in the league is having this same advantage.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000 ... mp-in-2014

[Steady_Hawk]

It's only an advantage if you have the talent to sign.

[NorthHawk]

What it does do is provide an opportunity to sign players at today's rate for a long term with more guaranteed money.
Getting the big money early is something most players want because of the possibility of short careers, so if a couple more million is guaranteed, many will take it instead of gambling on more.
That's probably more true if they are on a team they like and have a good chance to go to the SB.

I think this really helps us for the longer term.

[NorthHawk]

From PFT:

The NFLPA has announced that the cap has increased by a whopping $10 million since 2013. With teams averaging $6.1 million of carryover cap space from last year, that gives teams an average of $139.1 million to spend in 2014.

[NorthHawk]

The analogy to the minimum wage increase is wrong.
It's more like your company and all your competitors has a guaranteed increase in revenue of about 10% and your contracts say you must share in it.

By the way, we have 17.8 million in cap room at the moment according to spotrac.com.

[depaashaas]

The analogy to the minimum wage increase is wrong.
It's more like your company and all your competitors has a guaranteed increase in revenue of about 10% and your contracts say you must share in it.

By the way, we have 17.8 million in cap room at the moment according to spotrac.com.

I noticed that 17.8 mil, that is not much considering that the cap just increased with 10 mil and they released two players (Rice and Bryant) that were good for 17.3 mil by them self and then there are plenty of other players that are free agent that were making about 15 mil all together on top of the 17.3 guess some contracts were back loaded. Looks like they are not done with their cuts, I know Okung played hurt but 11 mil is a lot for as injured as he has been. Between Okung, Miller and Clemons they can free up another 30+ mil and I think they would free up 19 mil in cap space...These numbers are killing me, sure glad I am just a simple nursery guy

[briwas101]

Was a major reason I didn't understand the "panic" about the situation earlier, before knowing what the cap will be, who the Seahawks will pay, how much they will pay them ( not to mention people bundling players that won't have to be re signed in the same years) etc, doesn't make much sense to me. This team IS set up to retain whomever they want in the next several years ( not a "bad" contract that can't be gotten out of with no fuss). If they want to pay Sherman, Thomas, Wilson and hell even Bennett now, they certainly can, and without much stress.

There will be contracts that have to be reduced or cut in the next couple years, but that is the case with EVERY team in the NFL.

I don't know of anyone panicking over the salary cap situation, but we have had every reason to be looking at future cap costs and looking at which players have to go in order to make it work.

As for the comment about no bad contracts that they can't get out of with no fuss, you forgot about Percy Harvin. Not only is he super expensive to keep but he is expensive to cut as well. The Hawks tied up almost 10% of the salary cap in that one player. Definitely not one of Pete and John's good moves.

I also think your comment about panicking kind of involves "moving the goalposts" so to speak. I never wanted Miller or Rice on the team and I have advocated cutting both for a while now and I never liked Red Bryant's contract, but up until now almost no one has agreed with me and has called those players "critical" to the Hawks. A year ago most people on the message boards would say Miller, Rice, Clemons, and Bryant are necessary for our success and that cutting them would be a huge blow to the team.

Now, a year later, those same players are viewed as expendable by more people and suddenly everyone who cared about the salary cap was "panicking" over "nothing".

For the most part, us salary cap hawks have simply been pointing out that players who have been here for a while and were a part of our team's identity in years past are no longer going to fit on the team because of salary and/or performance. The Hawks can't afford to keep a bunch of players whose production fails to match their compensation.

Ok, let's get this straight out of the gate, it remains to be seen of Harvins contract is a "bad" one, as they can STILL maneuver out of that contract without much fuss, because A) the Seahawks wisely built in protection against injuries, and can void the last 3years, with NO money counting against the cap, meaning it isn't difficult to get out from under after next season, and B) because regardless of how you personally feel about the player, he IS a game changing receiver the likes of which no one in this city, or fan of this team has ever seen ( and no I am NOT forgetting the HOF receiver that ran around for this team for 15 years). As for the other that fans said were "necessary" for the Seahawks success, they WERE indeed necessary, however to pretend like they were, forever, is silly. NO ONE on this board or any other professed them a necessity for the length of their careers or even the length of their contract. If the Hawks have found better alternatives, great, but NONE of those players mentioned creates a SINGLE "dead" dollar with their release, not a one, meaning they can be cut, and will be when necessary, or when a cheaper, and or better player is found.

Watchdog the cap all you want, but it simply does not change the fact that signing Red, or Clemmons, or Miller to those contracts limits Seattle in ANY way in the future. Maybe you preferred to save money and be like Jacksonville, I prefer the SB winning program, to each his own.

The cap isn't static, it's fluid, fortunately, those in charge of it grasp the concept, as without those players who knows if they win it all? If they go so be it. However, each one contributed to a SB win. NOW the Hawk have replacements, before they didn't which made them "necessary" no matter which cheap alternative you preferred.

Ok, let's get this straight out of the gate:

1. In Harvin's 5 seasons in the NFL he has had EXACTLY ZERO seasons that were worth $11m. Season 1, season 2, season 3, season 4, and now season 5 with the Hawks. If a player was NEVER worth $11m per season BEFORE we gave the contract, then how is it not a bad contract, especially with how horrible his season with the Hawks went?

Golden Tate has never been worth $11m per season, so wouldn't that mean that giving him a contract for $11m per season would be a bad deal?

Expecting an injury-prone player to not only stay healthy but ALSO be better than he ever has in his life is a pretty big expectation.


2. Also, you are wrong about the Hawks being able to void the last 3 years without taking a cap hit. They don't have to pay his salary (just like ANY cut player) but any remaining signing bonus that has not been paid HAS TO COUNT AGAINST THE CAP. From what i read, the injury protection for the Hawks was only for after season 1 we could cut him and not pay him any more, but we would still take a dead cap hit for bonus money.

3. No he IS NOT a "game changing receiver the likes of which no one in this city, or fan of this team has ever seen". Baldwin and Tate both average more yards PER GAME than Harvin. You are making the same mistake that other Harvin-nut-huggers are making. If Harvin gets 10 yards you say its better than Baldwin's 50 yards. If Harvin gets 20 yards you say its better than Tate's 70 yards.

Tate is more of a game-changer because he DOES MORE DURING GAMES.

Baldwin is more of a game-changer because HE DOES MORE DURING GAMES.

Harvin's COMBINED receiving yards in his 3 games were 46 yards. He got 17 rec yards in his one reg season game, and 26 rec yards in the playoffs.

TATE AND BALDWIN EACH AVERAGE THAT MUCH PER GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Whether you want to admit it or not, Tate and Baldwin are BOTH better WIDE RECEIVERS than Harvin.

Harvin is a "WR" that averages only 2.5 yards from the line of scrimmage when he catches it (shortest distance in NFL by far), and he is a RB that can only run to the outside. He is not someone that can run routes. He can catch the ball at the line of scrimmage and then try to avoid tacklers. Thats not a WR.


4. "Maybe you preferred to save money and be like Jacksonville, I prefer the SB winning program, to each his own"
Wow, what a snarky comment from someone who has trouble with numbers. In case you didn't realize, teams must operate with finances in mind if they want to build a successfull team.

The Harvin trade is EXACTLY the kind of move the Cowboys and Redskins make (in other words, bad move). Teams do not get good by making these types of bad trades/bad contracts. Not only does it not make the teams better, it is a big part of what holds them back.

Don't get mad at me because the Hawks are paying $11m+ per season to a player that doesnt even deserve half that amount.

Don't get mad at me because the Hawks stupidly thought that injury-prone players stop being injury-prone when they come to Seattle.

Don't get mad at me because you probably bought his jersey and it will be useless in a couple years.

[c_hawkbob]

Ok, let's get this straight out of the gate:

1. In Harvin's 5 seasons in the NFL he has had EXACTLY ZERO seasons that were worth $11m. Season 1, season 2, season 3, season 4, and now season 5 with the Hawks. If a player was NEVER worth $11m per season BEFORE we gave the contract, then how is it not a bad contract, especially with how horrible his season with the Hawks went?

Golden Tate has never been worth $11m per season, so wouldn't that mean that giving him a contract for $11m per season would be a bad deal?

Expecting an injury-prone player to not only stay healthy but ALSO be better than he ever has in his life is a pretty big expectation.


2. Also, you are wrong about the Hawks being able to void the last 3 years without taking a cap hit. They don't have to pay his salary (just like ANY cut player) but any remaining signing bonus that has not been paid HAS TO COUNT AGAINST THE CAP. From what i read, the injury protection for the Hawks was only for after season 1 we could cut him and not pay him any more, but we would still take a dead cap hit for bonus money.

3. No he IS NOT a "game changing receiver the likes of which no one in this city, or fan of this team has ever seen". Baldwin and Tate both average more yards PER GAME than Harvin. You are making the same mistake that other Harvin-nut-huggers are making. If Harvin gets 10 yards you say its better than Baldwin's 50 yards. If Harvin gets 20 yards you say its better than Tate's 70 yards.

Tate is more of a game-changer because he DOES MORE DURING GAMES.

Baldwin is more of a game-changer because HE DOES MORE DURING GAMES.

Harvin's COMBINED receiving yards in his 3 games were 46 yards. He got 17 rec yards in his one reg season game, and 26 rec yards in the playoffs.

TATE AND BALDWIN EACH AVERAGE THAT MUCH PER GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Whether you want to admit it or not, Tate and Baldwin are BOTH better WIDE RECEIVERS than Harvin.

Harvin is a "WR" that averages only 2.5 yards from the line of scrimmage when he catches it (shortest distance in NFL by far), and he is a RB that can only run to the outside. He is not someone that can run routes. He can catch the ball at the line of scrimmage and then try to avoid tacklers. Thats not a WR.


4. "Maybe you preferred to save money and be like Jacksonville, I prefer the SB winning program, to each his own"
Wow, what a snarky comment from someone who has trouble with numbers. In case you didn't realize, teams must operate with finances in mind if they want to build a successfull team.

The Harvin trade is EXACTLY the kind of move the Cowboys and Redskins make (in other words, bad move). Teams do not get good by making these types of bad trades/bad contracts. Not only does it not make the teams better, it is a big part of what holds them back.

Don't get mad at me because the Hawks are paying $11m+ per season to a player that doesnt even deserve half that amount.

Don't get mad at me because the Hawks stupidly thought that injury-prone players stop being injury-prone when they come to Seattle.

Don't get mad at me because you probably bought his jersey and it will be useless in a couple years.

Oh man! Do we all have to share your opinion?

... If you want mine;

1- Dude, watch the Super Bowl. Harvin just needs to be healthy for half a season plus the playoffs every year to earn every dollar.

3- Isn't this exactly the same argument you made for #1? Love Tate & DB Fresh but they do not bring the same things to the table that Harvin does. The difference between what Pete can do with and without Harvin in the lineup is greater than with any other player not named Russell Wilson. That's his true value.

4- Stupid argument. We get more (production) out of less (draft/monetary capitol) than any team in the league. Which is what allows Pete & Bo Duke the latitude to take chances with the rest of the money we have to spend anyway . (Yes we all know we won't have this much excess to play with for ever, but as long as we're able to mine starter level talent in later rounds an free agency this will hold true at least to some degree).

I ain't mad at you, at least I wasn't until you compared us to the Cowgirls and Foreskins ...

[briwas101]

Ok, let's get this straight out of the gate:

1. In Harvin's 5 seasons in the NFL he has had EXACTLY ZERO seasons that were worth $11m. Season 1, season 2, season 3, season 4, and now season 5 with the Hawks. If a player was NEVER worth $11m per season BEFORE we gave the contract, then how is it not a bad contract, especially with how horrible his season with the Hawks went?

Golden Tate has never been worth $11m per season, so wouldn't that mean that giving him a contract for $11m per season would be a bad deal?

Expecting an injury-prone player to not only stay healthy but ALSO be better than he ever has in his life is a pretty big expectation.


2. Also, you are wrong about the Hawks being able to void the last 3 years without taking a cap hit. They don't have to pay his salary (just like ANY cut player) but any remaining signing bonus that has not been paid HAS TO COUNT AGAINST THE CAP. From what i read, the injury protection for the Hawks was only for after season 1 we could cut him and not pay him any more, but we would still take a dead cap hit for bonus money.

3. No he IS NOT a "game changing receiver the likes of which no one in this city, or fan of this team has ever seen". Baldwin and Tate both average more yards PER GAME than Harvin. You are making the same mistake that other Harvin-nut-huggers are making. If Harvin gets 10 yards you say its better than Baldwin's 50 yards. If Harvin gets 20 yards you say its better than Tate's 70 yards.

Tate is more of a game-changer because he DOES MORE DURING GAMES.

Baldwin is more of a game-changer because HE DOES MORE DURING GAMES.

Harvin's COMBINED receiving yards in his 3 games were 46 yards. He got 17 rec yards in his one reg season game, and 26 rec yards in the playoffs.

TATE AND BALDWIN EACH AVERAGE THAT MUCH PER GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Whether you want to admit it or not, Tate and Baldwin are BOTH better WIDE RECEIVERS than Harvin.

Harvin is a "WR" that averages only 2.5 yards from the line of scrimmage when he catches it (shortest distance in NFL by far), and he is a RB that can only run to the outside. He is not someone that can run routes. He can catch the ball at the line of scrimmage and then try to avoid tacklers. Thats not a WR.


4. "Maybe you preferred to save money and be like Jacksonville, I prefer the SB winning program, to each his own"
Wow, what a snarky comment from someone who has trouble with numbers. In case you didn't realize, teams must operate with finances in mind if they want to build a successfull team.

The Harvin trade is EXACTLY the kind of move the Cowboys and Redskins make (in other words, bad move). Teams do not get good by making these types of bad trades/bad contracts. Not only does it not make the teams better, it is a big part of what holds them back.

Don't get mad at me because the Hawks are paying $11m+ per season to a player that doesnt even deserve half that amount.

Don't get mad at me because the Hawks stupidly thought that injury-prone players stop being injury-prone when they come to Seattle.

Don't get mad at me because you probably bought his jersey and it will be useless in a couple years.

Oh man! Do we all have to share your opinion?

... If you want mine;

1- Dude, watch the Super Bowl. Harvin just needs to be healthy for half a season plus the playoffs every year to earn every dollar.

3- Isn't this exactly the same argument you made for #1? Love Tate & DB Fresh but they do not bring the same things to the table that Harvin does. The difference between what Pete can do with and without Harvin in the lineup is greater than with any other player not named Russell Wilson. That's his true value.

4- Stupid argument. We get more (production) out of less (draft/monetary capitol) than any team in the league. Which is what allows Pete & Bo Duke the latitude to take chances with the rest of the money we have to spend anyway . (Yes we all know we won't have this much excess to play with for ever, but as long as we're able to mine starter level talent in later rounds an free agency this will hold true at least to some degree).

I ain't mad at you, at least I wasn't until you compared us to the Cowgirls and Foreskins ...

1. If he had that EXACT performance 8 games during the regular season and every playoff game then he would perhaps be worth it, but remember that his other 2 games were mediocre for what he's being paid so I will kindly ask you to watch his first two games as a hawk and you will see our other WR have a bigger impact on the game.

4. Yes, we get better production FROM OUR DRAFT PICKS. Notice that Percy Harvin is not one of them. Your logic that we draft so well that we can afford to overpay players double or triple what they are worth is the kind of "logic" that would sink any team that HASNT hit on players like Sherman and Wilson (among many others).

But as soon as their rookie contracts end (as many people have said MANY TIMES) we no longer get the benefit of great production on cheap deals. We are coming to that point very quickly.

You wanna know something HILARIOUS? The Hawks wouldn't have to break a sweat re-signing Bennett if we didn't have 10% of our salary cap going to Mr. "One catch for 17 yards" Harvin. You guys like to conveniently ignore that FACT. We have to maneuver around to resign a guy that played a big part in us making the super bowl and winning it because we gave 10% of the cap to a guy that can't stay healthy and only has a good game 1/3 of the time.

And to make something clear, i only said the harvin trade was like the redskins and cowboys because it is. They have no problem trading away top picks and giving out huge contracts. Please explain which part of the Harvin trade doesn't match up....

The seahawks success has come 100% from draft picks and CHEAP PICKUPS and 1-year show-me deals. Their big money deals have proven not to be worth it. Not a single big money player has lived up to his contract. Not Rice, not Miller, not Bryant, not Harvin.

You lump EVERY move together and say, "eh, we won the super bowl therefore everything is a good move" and you are totally wrong about that. Their good moves can easily be categorized and their bad moves can easily be categorized. I think you can guess which one our 2nd injured vikings WR falls under.


PS. I don't think everyone has to share my opinion. Time proves which people were right and which were wrong and I welcome that. I responded to whatshisname specifically because his comment about Harvin UNDENIABLY being the greatest or whatever. I don't even think Harvin is one of the 3 best WR on our team right now so his claim required a response from me.

If people want to pretend that Harvin was worth it, be my guest. Just don't ignore the numbers. The numbers say that if he wasnt the most overpaid player in the entire NFL then he was at least top 3. So if someone is going to say that a horrible season from a player makes him UNDENIABLY the best or whatever then i am absolutely going to respond.

[HumanCockroach]

don't know of anyone panicking over the salary cap situation, but we have had every reason to be looking at future cap costs and looking at which players have to go in order to make it work.

As for the comment about no bad contracts that they can't get out of with no fuss, you forgot about Percy Harvin. Not only is he super expensive to keep but he is expensive to cut as well. The Hawks tied up almost 10% of the salary cap in that one player. Definitely not one of Pete and John's good moves.

I also think your comment about panicking kind of involves "moving the goalposts" so to speak. I never wanted Miller or Rice on the team and I have advocated cutting both for a while now and I never liked Red Bryant's contract, but up until now almost no one has agreed with me and has called those players "critical" to the Hawks. A year ago most people on the message boards would say Miller, Rice, Clemons, and Bryant are necessary for our success and that cutting them would be a huge blow to the team.

Now, a year later, those same players are viewed as expendable by more people and suddenly everyone who cared about the salary cap was "panicking" over "nothing".

For the most part, us salary cap hawks have simply been pointing out that players who have been here for a while and were a part of our team's identity in years past are no longer going to fit on the team because of salary and/or performance. The Hawks can't afford to keep a bunch of players whose production fails to match their compensation.[/quote]

Ok, let's get this straight out of the gate, it remains to be seen of Harvins contract is a "bad" one, as they can STILL maneuver out of that contract without much fuss, because A) the Seahawks wisely built in protection against injuries, and can void the last 3years, with NO money counting against the cap, meaning it isn't difficult to get out from under after next season, and B) because regardless of how you personally feel about the player, he IS a game changing receiver the likes of which no one in this city, or fan of this team has ever seen ( and no I am NOT forgetting the HOF receiver that ran around for this team for 15 years). As for the other that fans said were "necessary" for the Seahawks success, they WERE indeed necessary, however to pretend like they were, forever, is silly. NO ONE on this board or any other professed them a necessity for the length of their careers or even the length of their contract. If the Hawks have found better alternatives, great, but NONE of those players mentioned creates a SINGLE "dead" dollar with their release, not a one, meaning they can be cut, and will be when necessary, or when a cheaper, and or better player is found.

Watchdog the cap all you want, but it simply does not change the fact that signing Red, or Clemmons, or Miller to those contracts limits Seattle in ANY way in the future. Maybe you preferred to save money and be like Jacksonville, I prefer the SB winning program, to each his own.

The cap isn't static, it's fluid, fortunately, those in charge of it grasp the concept, as without those players who knows if they win it all? If they go so be it. However, each one contributed to a SB win. NOW the Hawk have replacements, before they didn't which made them "necessary" no matter which cheap alternative you preferred.[/quote]
Ok, let's get this straight out of the gate:

1. In Harvin's 5 seasons in the NFL he has had EXACTLY ZERO seasons that were worth $11m. Season 1, season 2, season 3, season 4, and now season 5 with the Hawks. If a player was NEVER worth $11m per season BEFORE we gave the contract, then how is it not a bad contract, especially with how horrible his season with the Hawks went?

Golden Tate has never been worth $11m per season, so wouldn't that mean that giving him a contract for $11m per season would be a bad deal?

Expecting an injury-prone player to not only stay healthy but ALSO be better than he ever has in his life is a pretty big expectation.


2. Also, you are wrong about the Hawks being able to void the last 3 years without taking a cap hit. They don't have to pay his salary (just like ANY cut player) but any remaining signing bonus that has not been paid HAS TO COUNT AGAINST THE CAP. From what i read, the injury protection for the Hawks was only for after season 1 we could cut him and not pay him any more, but we would still take a dead cap hit for bonus money.

3. No he IS NOT a "game changing receiver the likes of which no one in this city, or fan of this team has ever seen". Baldwin and Tate both average more yards PER GAME than Harvin. You are making the same mistake that other Harvin-nut-huggers are making. If Harvin gets 10 yards you say its better than Baldwin's 50 yards. If Harvin gets 20 yards you say its better than Tate's 70 yards.

Tate is more of a game-changer because he DOES MORE DURING GAMES.

Baldwin is more of a game-changer because HE DOES MORE DURING GAMES.

Harvin's COMBINED receiving yards in his 3 games were 46 yards. He got 17 rec yards in his one reg season game, and 26 rec yards in the playoffs.

TATE AND BALDWIN EACH AVERAGE THAT MUCH PER GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Whether you want to admit it or not, Tate and Baldwin are BOTH better WIDE RECEIVERS than Harvin.

Harvin is a "WR" that averages only 2.5 yards from the line of scrimmage when he catches it (shortest distance in NFL by far), and he is a RB that can only run to the outside. He is not someone that can run routes. He can catch the ball at the line of scrimmage and then try to avoid tacklers. Thats not a WR.


4. "Maybe you preferred to save money and be like Jacksonville, I prefer the SB winning program, to each his own"
Wow, what a snarky comment from someone who has trouble with numbers. In case you didn't realize, teams must operate with finances in mind if they want to build a successfull team.

The Harvin trade is EXACTLY the kind of move the Cowboys and Redskins make (in other words, bad move). Teams do not get good by making these types of bad trades/bad contracts. Not only does it not make the teams better, it is a big part of what holds them back.

Don't get mad at me because the Hawks are paying $11m+ per season to a player that doesnt even deserve half that amount.

Don't get mad at me because the Hawks stupidly thought that injury-prone players stop being injury-prone when they come to Seattle.

Don't get mad at me because you probably bought his jersey and it will be useless in a couple years.[/quote]

LOL, maybe watch some tape ( and yeah that mean tape from more than just the regular season in Seattle) and get back to me. Anyone who denies his explosive game changing ability, is simply clueless about his ability and what he brings to the table. Harvin is perhaps the most explosive player in the NFL, if not "the" then certainly in the top 3 or 4. A case can be made for others, but when stacked against Harvin's YAC ability, as well as his ability in ST most pale in comparison. The contract CAN be a "bad" move should he miss the same amount of games this season, and by the way, I said they could get out from under that contract after year two ( meaning that to cut him prior would cost more against the cap, creating "dead" money 7.5 or some such amount, however after the second season, the "dead" money is offset, meaning he CAN be cut).

Dance all you want with it, I am not an "offensive" fan and never have been, no jersey I have ever purchased bears the name of one. I have spent most of my life studying or coaching or playing defensive back, hence when I see the extrordinary ability and talent a player posses that a DB would have to account for, I see it for what it is. Believe what you want, that "eye opening" will come soon enough would be my guess.

[NorthHawk]

If they void Harvin's contract after the 3rd year they can save 5 million the first year, 7.5 million the next year, about 10 million, followed by about 11 million.
There will be a lot of dead money, though.

It could be worse, the Lions have around 39% of this years cap space tied up in Suh, Stafford, and Johnson.

[monkey]

Briwas, if you think that we are paying Harvin ONLY for his production in terms of statistics, then I just don't know what to tell you, because you CLEARLY do not understand value.

His value is every bit in what he opens up for everyone else, as much as in what he does himself.
If you haven't figured out by now that his speed, and big play ability alone is worth a buttload of money, then I just don't know how to even start explaining to you how football works.

Harvin is a transcendent player, the kind who LITERALLY changes the entire game JUST BY BEING ON THE FIELD!
There are maybe a handful of them in the NFL total, maybe.
Is he overpaid when looking at what he's done? Well duh, he's been hurt!
Is he overpaid for what he does when healthy?
Did you watch the Superbowl?!? LOL!
Those two big runs he made, opened up the middle for Lynch to pick up a couple of big first downs, they forced Pot Roast, who had been sitting in the middle anticipating Lynch, to over pursue, and to bite on the play fake to Harvin.
The touchdown kick return speaks for itself, that's six points generated, and the proverbial dagger in the heart, just because Harvin returned a kick.
Later on, with the touchdown passes, Harvin's presence was a HUGE factor in them getting open. In fact, on the throw to Tate that would have been a touchdown except for the pass interference, (which then turned into a goal line run for Beast Mode), Tate got open because of Harvin.

You just don't get it if you can't see what Harvin does. Go watch the all 22 and see how much his presence changes the way teams defend our offense.

[NorthHawk]

I heard a comment on NFL Radio this morning on the way to work.
They were talking about Free Agents and how each year they talk to many of them and they all expect to get big offers.
It happens for the few at the top, but the rest often wait it out and get lesser offers because teams will look to fill that position by the draft. other teams cuts, or are willing to wait until it becomes a buyers market and the expectations are lower. The Agents talk it up that they are in touch with a lot of interested teams and when June comes around a number of good football players don't have teams.

Smart players will take the guaranteed money up front even if it's a little less than expected or advised by their Agent because of that doubt - and the increased Cap helps us keep more of our players.
The exceptions will be guys like Thomas or Sherman and Wilson and maybe Bennett, but the others maybe not so much.

[Eaglehawk]

I heard a comment on NFL Radio this morning on the way to work.
They were talking about Free Agents and how each year they talk to many of them and they all expect to get big offers.
It happens for the few at the top, but the rest often wait it out and get lesser offers because teams will look to fill that position by the draft. other teams cuts, or are willing to wait until it becomes a buyers market and the expectations are lower. The Agents talk it up that they are in touch with a lot of interested teams and when June comes around a number of good football players don't have teams.

Smart players will take the guaranteed money up front even if it's a little less than expected or advised by their Agent because of that doubt - and the increased Cap helps us keep more of our players.
The exceptions will be guys like Thomas or Sherman and Wilson and maybe Bennett, but the others maybe not so much.

This is the part of football that not many people talk about. The dynamic of dealing with FA's and how it really works as opposed to what we just read every day.
I suspect that more players take the guaranteed money unless they are elite(they they will wait a bit longer cause they know they will get something), just because of that reason.

[NorthHawk]

PFT is reporting that the Cap might just reach 160 Million in 2016!
Apparently last week it was suggested that it might hit 140 Million next year.

This is just educated guessing on their contact's part, but we might just see another big jump next year and the year after. Whether it gets to 160 Million or not we will just have to see.
Good news for us if we have signed ET, RS, and RW to larger contracts as they will be taking lesser % of the total Cap space.