Does anyone really think Clark will be traded

[Seymour]

Marsh's best role would be big time wresting. :snack:

 

[Largent80]

Marsh's best role would be big time wresting. :snack:

He looks like your pic, maybe you should play.

 

[Seymour]

I already do.

Seymour Butts ass kicking foundation. :irishdrinkers:

 

[mikeak]

Clark wants too much money. Seattle surely has a plan to resign him (for less) and he has a plan to sign for Seattle (for more).

The stalemate leads to trade rumors which won't go anywhere because Clark has a plan (for more money than offered) and without a new deal nobody is trading for him.

You can use a draft pick and a few million bucks for an unproven commodity or a draft pick and a LOT of millions for a proven commodity. Most teams will gamble on their scouts

Best chance for a deal is on draft day when some team misses out on their guy, but this gets complicated as they would also need to agree with Clark on a new deal...….. that won't work

So I don't think he gets traded, but think he should because as good as he is he simply wants more money than we should pay him

Dream scenario though if we can afford it / he plays on the tag is that we do not trade down and pick a rusher to pair up with Clark in the first round....

 

[warden]

We no longer have the legion of boom. Best way to compensate for a young secondary is with a good pass rush. Keeping both Reed and Clarke would do that. Maybe use our first and add another DL to the mix

 

[Sgt. Largent]

We no longer have the legion of boom. Best way to compensate for a young secondary is with a good pass rush. Keeping both Reed and Clarke would do that. Maybe use our first and add another DL to the mix

Ideally we'd love to keep both Reed and Clark, but when you start adding up the cap space needed to keep Russell, Bobby, Reed and Clark, it might pose a problem going forward.

The cap going forward is 188M for 2019, so probably 200M for 2020, so add up Russell's average cap hit of 35M, and Frank's potential cap hit of 21M, Reed's around 15M and Bobby's of 17M?

That's 88M of cap space taken up by four players, that's almost 50% of your cap space.

So Idk, something has to give doesn't it? Thus why I think Frank's the odd man out, he can return the most draft value, and would cost the 2nd most on the team.

 

[Largent80]

I keep Reed and Clark can walk. College is producing DL way above OL. Just keep churning.

 

[knownone]

I wouldn’t be worried about future cap space that much. If Seattle trades Frank it’s not because they can’t afford him. It’s because they value the return of assets more than Clark.

That is the key to understanding the situation. We did a draft value thought experiment in one of the other Frank threads and determined JS could turn Frank into 5 top 100 picks. If you have confidence in your ability to draft guys in rounds 2-4, then trading Clark could potentially open up a new Super Bowl window this season. Assuming you get market value for Clark in the trade.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I wouldn’t be worried about future cap space that much. If Seattle trades Frank it’s not because they can’t afford him. It’s because they value the return of assets more than Clark.

That is the key to understanding the situation. We did a draft value thought experiment in one of the other Frank threads and determined JS could turn Frank into 5 top 100 picks. If you have confidence in your ability to draft guys in rounds 2-4, then trading Clark could potentially open up a new Super Bowl window this season. Assuming you get market value for Clark in the trade.

It's both, it's always both.

Good teams have their cap number and future player values calculated and ballparked years in advance, and the Hawks have one of the best cap managers in the league in Matt Thomas.

It's pretty obvious by now that whatever cap number Pete and John agreed to that was Frank's number, the market has exceeded that number. My guess is somewhere in the 16-18M range, and now it's 21M+.

So when you go from 18M and 40-50M guaranteed slotted for Clark to now him wanting 21M and over 65M guaranteed after Lawrence signed? You do what good teams do, shop the hell out of the player, or franchise him. You sure don't blow up your future cap space by committing crazy money to a 13 sack a year player that may or may not improve that number to 20 sacks that warrant this type of salary commitment.

 

[DJrmb]

We no longer have the legion of boom. Best way to compensate for a young secondary is with a good pass rush. Keeping both Reed and Clarke would do that. Maybe use our first and add another DL to the mix

Ideally we'd love to keep both Reed and Clark, but when you start adding up the cap space needed to keep Russell, Bobby, Reed and Clark, it might pose a problem going forward.

The cap going forward is 188M for 2019, so probably 200M for 2020, so add up Russell's average cap hit of 35M, and Frank's potential cap hit of 21M, Reed's around 15M and Bobby's of 17M?

That's 88M of cap space taken up by four players, that's almost 50% of your cap space.

So Idk, something has to give doesn't it? Thus why I think Frank's the odd man out, he can return the most draft value, and would cost the 2nd most on the team.

The thing that just taking APY doesn't take into account is structure. RW's cap hit for 2020 is not 35M, and that is actually fairly common. A lot of extensions have a lower 1st year cap hit then what the APY would suggest. Also when deals like these get reported the agents always put out the max amount of money that can be earned. It's plausible that if Frank signs a deal worth 21M APY that there are chunks of that that are tied to incentives/performance that he could never see, or that he won't see until later in his contract, not factoring into his 1st years cap hit.

To me I look back at the last time we went through this sort of thing. People were saying the same things, how we can't pay all these guys: Russ, Bobby, Sherm, Earl, and Kam. Each one of those guys got extended and got deals at or near the top of their position group. This was while still being able to extend guys like Avril and Bennett to decent sized deals. Using that as a template I would think it's reasonable to assume, if structured correctly, you can have 4-5 guys on top level deals and still field a complete and good team.

Edit:
You're spot on about value. If they don't think Frank can be a top 5 pass rusher over the length of his next deal then you certainly don't commit that much money to him. Russ, Earl, Bobby, Sherm, and Kam were all top of their position guys. This will definitely come down to weather or not John and Pete think Frank will be.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

We no longer have the legion of boom. Best way to compensate for a young secondary is with a good pass rush. Keeping both Reed and Clarke would do that. Maybe use our first and add another DL to the mix

Ideally we'd love to keep both Reed and Clark, but when you start adding up the cap space needed to keep Russell, Bobby, Reed and Clark, it might pose a problem going forward.

The cap going forward is 188M for 2019, so probably 200M for 2020, so add up Russell's average cap hit of 35M, and Frank's potential cap hit of 21M, Reed's around 15M and Bobby's of 17M?

That's 88M of cap space taken up by four players, that's almost 50% of your cap space.

So Idk, something has to give doesn't it? Thus why I think Frank's the odd man out, he can return the most draft value, and would cost the 2nd most on the team.

The thing that just taking APY doesn't take into account is structure. RW's cap hit for 2020 is not 35M, and that is actually fairly common. A lot of extensions have a lower 1st year cap hit then what the APY would suggest. Also when deals like these get reported the agents always put out the max amount of money that can be earned. It's plausible that if Frank signs a deal worth 21M APY that there are chunks of that that are tied to incentives/performance that he could never see, or that he won't see until later in his contract, not factoring into his 1st years cap hit.

To me I look back at the last time we went through this sort of thing. People were saying the same things, how we can't pay all these guys: Russ, Bobby, Sherm, Earl, and Kam. Each one of those guys got extended and got deals at or near the top of their position group. This was while still being able to extend guys like Avril and Bennett to decent sized deals. Using that as a template I would think it's reasonable to assume, if structured correctly, you can have 4-5 guys on top level deals and still field a complete and good team.

1. That's why I said Russell's "average" cap hit over the next 4-5 years, which is 35M.

2. We could pay all those guys cause Russell was making 600k at the time we extended most of those guys.........and conversely why we had to cut or trade most of them midway through his 2nd contract. So we've "never been through this sort of thing" before.

We are now in a new era of having to pay our QB top money, and that means making Clark trade like sacrifices. Especially on a team that still has holes and depth issues all over the roster.

Again, 21M for Clark + just having paid Russell + Wagner and Reed's extensions looming + only 4 picks this draft = something has to give.

 

[truehawksfan]

I know we heard a lot of crap during Wilson's contract talks so who knows if any of the Clark will be traded talk is true.

But, the Hawks said they would listen to teams about Sherman and I cannot recall any rumors about any offers from any team. And, the only team interested in ET was Dallas and after what happened this off season, not sure if they were seriously interested.

4 teams are rumored to be interested in Clark and they all need edge rushers. I'm not a gambling man, but the odds are looking at a trade.

 

[DJrmb]

1. That's why I said Russell's "average" cap hit over the next 4-5 years, which is 35M.

Again, you're not taking into account structure of these deals. The "Average" doesn't matter. Russell's new deal is structured to make his cap hit 31M in 2020, not 35M (32M in 2021). That's to allow the Salary cap increases to catch up to the players contracts. Frank and Wagner will also have money back-loaded on their contracts to lower their cap hits the first year or two. They will structure these things to fit the annual cap increases as they have shown in the past. The money's there if they want it and structure the deals for it.

2. We could pay all those guys cause Russell was making 600k at the time we extended most of those guys.........and conversely why we had to cut or trade most of them midway through his 2nd contract. So we've "never been through this sort of thing" before.

They still had to pay all those guys top $ a year or two before knowing Russell's contract was coming up, and still have the money to sign him... When they signed Russ all of those guys were still on their big deals, with big cap hits most of them paid either highest at their position or top 3 in "Average", and they still made Russ the 2nd highest paid player in the NFL. It's not like they paid those guys all their money before signing Russ, they were all still on some of the highest paid deals for their positions. The only one of those guys that was cut before reaching the end of their contract was Sherman, and that had more to do with injury than money.

We are now in a new era of having to pay our QB top money, and that means making Clark trade like sacrifices. Especially on a team that still has holes and depth issues all over the roster.

Russell Wilson's last extension was for top QB money. He's now signing a 3rd deal, meaning we have already lived through having a QB that's at or near the top of the league. We missed the playoffs 1 time during that stint. That was even with some big mistakes that ate up cap (giving Lynch and Bennett more money just to eat it later) and having some really unfortunate events (Kam and Avril getting hurt after signing pretty big deals). Still extended top guys like Doug, and Lockett. Still were able to bring in a high paid LT and extend him too. Every team deals with sacrifices and has holes. Will there be some (more) of those because of how much a top QB is paid? Yes. However, it's my opinion that you can still have a few top paid guys with a top paid QB. It comes down to the value. You know you're only going to be able to pay 4-5 guys big money. Is Clark one of them?

Again, 21M for Clark + just having paid Russell + Wagner and Reed's extensions looming + only 4 picks this draft = something has to give.

I believe they have the money to sign all those guys and be fine. You're welcome to your own opinion. To me it just comes down to value. Is Frank Clark worth making one of the highest paid pass rusher in the NFL? I would lean towards no personally.

 

[IndyHawk]

1. That's why I said Russell's "average" cap hit over the next 4-5 years, which is 35M.

Again, you're not taking into account structure of these deals. The "Average" doesn't matter. Russell's new deal is structured to make his cap hit 31M in 2020, not 35M (32M in 2021). That's to allow the Salary cap increases to catch up to the players contracts. Frank and Wagner will also have money back-loaded on their contracts to lower their cap hits the first year or two. They will structure these things to fit the annual cap increases as they have shown in the past. The money's there if they want it and structure the deals for it.

2. We could pay all those guys cause Russell was making 600k at the time we extended most of those guys.........and conversely why we had to cut or trade most of them midway through his 2nd contract. So we've "never been through this sort of thing" before.

They still had to pay all those guys top $ a year or two before knowing Russell's contract was coming up, and still have the money to sign him... When they signed Russ all of those guys were still on their big deals, with big cap hits most of them paid either highest at their position or top 3 in "Average", and they still made Russ the 2nd highest paid player in the NFL. It's not like they paid those guys all their money before signing Russ, they were all still on some of the highest paid deals for their positions. The only one of those guys that was cut before reaching the end of their contract was Sherman, and that had more to do with injury than money.

We are now in a new era of having to pay our QB top money, and that means making Clark trade like sacrifices. Especially on a team that still has holes and depth issues all over the roster.

Russell Wilson's last extension was for top QB money. He's now signing a 3rd deal, meaning we have already lived through having a QB that's at or near the top of the league. We missed the playoffs 1 time during that stint. That was even with some big mistakes that ate up cap (giving Lynch and Bennett more money just to eat it later) and having some really unfortunate events (Kam and Avril getting hurt after signing pretty big deals). Still extended top guys like Doug, and Lockett. Still were able to bring in a high paid LT and extend him too. Every team deals with sacrifices and has holes. Will there be some (more) of those because of how much a top QB is paid? Yes. However, it's my opinion that you can still have a few top paid guys with a top paid QB. It comes down to the value. You know you're only going to be able to pay 4-5 guys big money. Is Clark one of them?

Again, 21M for Clark + just having paid Russell + Wagner and Reed's extensions looming + only 4 picks this draft = something has to give.

I believe they have the money to sign all those guys and be fine. You're welcome to your own opinion. To me it just comes down to value. Is Frank Clark worth making one of the highest paid pass rusher in the NFL? I would lean towards no personally.

You forget that we were not paying OL or Wr's during that stretch after the 2 SB's..
Sarge makes solid points on cap..You are taking parts of one season mixing with a couple seasons
later..They didn't do all these deals that close where you make it seem so doable.

 

[knownone]

I wouldn’t be worried about future cap space that much. If Seattle trades Frank it’s not because they can’t afford him. It’s because they value the return of assets more than Clark.

That is the key to understanding the situation. We did a draft value thought experiment in one of the other Frank threads and determined JS could turn Frank into 5 top 100 picks. If you have confidence in your ability to draft guys in rounds 2-4, then trading Clark could potentially open up a new Super Bowl window this season. Assuming you get market value for Clark in the trade.

It's both, it's always both.

Good teams have their cap number and future player values calculated and ballparked years in advance, and the Hawks have one of the best cap managers in the league in Matt Thomas.

It's pretty obvious by now that whatever cap number Pete and John agreed to that was Frank's number, the market has exceeded that number. My guess is somewhere in the 16-18M range, and now it's 21M+.

So when you go from 18M and 40-50M guaranteed slotted for Clark to now him wanting 21M and over 65M guaranteed after Lawrence signed? You do what good teams do, shop the hell out of the player, or franchise him. You sure don't blow up your future cap space by committing crazy money to a 13 sack a year player that may or may not improve that number to 20 sacks that warrant this type of salary commitment.

I don't disagree with your logic; however, I don't agree with your conclusion. We don't know if Frank's asking price has exceeded what the Seahawks are willing to pay. It's possible, but it's not obvious.

If they are trading Frank this season, they are not trading him to ease his future cap hit because they've already budgeted for his cap hit this season, and they can always trade him next season. There is nothing saying you have to re-sign him this season or trade him.

I think we agree on that concept. I'm not saying it's not a factor in why you don't re-sign Frank. I was just pointing out that future cap hit has nothing to do with why Seattle would trade him this offseason.

 

[KitsapGuy]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Curtis_Crabtree/status/1120469796397682690[/tweet]

 

[DJrmb]

You forget that we were not paying OL or Wr's during that stretch after the 2 SB's..
Sarge makes solid points on cap..You are taking parts of one season mixing with a couple seasons
later..They didn't do all these deals that close where you make it seem so doable.

Kam signed earliest in 2013
Earl signed in 2014 - highest paid in the league
Sherman was 2014 - highest paid in the league
Bobby was 2015 - Highest paid in the league

Then they signed RW and made him the 2nd highest paid player in NFL history in 2015 as well. How is that not close together? Maybe I could give you Kam but Earl Sherm and Bobby all signed within a season of RW and were on huge, record setting contracts for the time. They also went out and acquired Jimmy Graham who had also signed a record setting deal of his own. Do you seriously not remember people saying we couldn't pay all those guys during that time? John Schneider just referenced that in RW's press conference, while also saying they were up for the challenge...

 

[chris98251]

Geez take out Wilson insert Clark and the same people that were wrong then will be wrong now.

 

[Chawker]

John and Pete's pre draft press conf. is out.

And peter king is saying F.Clark will be traded to the KC Chiefs for 29 th and 63 rd picks. :les:

 

[Seymour]

John and Pete's pre draft press conf. is out.

And peter king is saying F.Clark will be traded to the KC Chiefs for 29 th and 63 rd picks. :les:

Hmmm. I said something very close to that and was laughed off .net (late 1st and 3rd to 4th)