Golden Tate

[Tical21]

I've defended Golden since Day 1, always saw some special talent in him. That said, I think he is too redundant to lock-down long-term. He isn't an outside receiver. On any other team, he plays in the slot. He just happens to be our third best slot receiver. I would like to see us use the position on the field to employ a player that is more different from everything else we have. I would honestly probably rather see Kearse in the Tate role, especially for 1/10th of the price. I don't at all dispute his hands, heart, YAC, returning ability etc. I just think his money is best spent elsewhere (Sherman/Okung), and I would like to see an opportunity for a different type of receiver open up.

 

[JMR]

I think the contract we will sign him to will seem more than he's "worth" but it wont be a big deal with the current cap increase, and it really won't be a big deal a couple years from now when the cap is $150mill and plenty of lesser WRs are getting as much or more in new deals.

 

[NFSeahawks]

Sign him now, damn it!

 

[NFSeahawks]

I've defended Golden since Day 1, always saw some special talent in him. That said, I think he is too redundant to lock-down long-term. He isn't an outside receiver. On any other team, he plays in the slot. He just happens to be our third best slot receiver. I would like to see us use the position on the field to employ a player that is more different from everything else we have. I would honestly probably rather see Kearse in the Tate role, especially for 1/10th of the price. I don't at all dispute his hands, heart, YAC, returning ability etc. I just think his money is best spent elsewhere (Sherman/Okung), and I would like to see an opportunity for a different type of receiver open up.

Your post contradicts itself he's always had special talent but he's not enough to lock down, obviously I like you but I just don't agree with that statement at all. He has unique YAC talent and capabilities that I don't think this team really wants to search for if he leaves. It's not as if were going to be paying him a ton of money.

I'm being fair on my stance but I will admit I'm pulling for Tate, simply because I was a doubter after his first few years in the league and he proved me well wrong.

It's hard to understand if players are playing better because of PC or because they are actually more talented or both.

The Super Bowl... sheesh... talk about playing out of your mind.

 

[plyka]

I like Tate and wish he could stay for much cheaper. I don't feel like if we let him walk and drafted a WR early that we couldn't replace his productions with Baldwin and Kearse.
$2M- Baldwin @ 2nd round RFA tender
$570k- Kearse last yer of contract is RFA next season
$1.3M- Salary of 1st rd WR
$650K- Salary of2nd round WR

WR is a position that a QB can make a player look much better than they are, I think RW makes Tate better than he really is, I am confident that with a healthy Harvin, Baldwin, and Kearse as our top 3 WR's we would get as good or better production we did this year without a healthy Harvin and Rice. If we invest in a Talented rookie WR they wll have an opportunity right away to get plenty of touches and even bringing ina few late round or UDFA WR's will be given a shout to stick around.

I think Tate has maxed out and will only really be what his is where a guy like Kearse could end up be a much more effictive WR for us, and this rookie class is soo deep we could add a Sidney Rice type WR who can actually stay healthy. no point in payign both Baldwin adn Tate and pushing Kearse down the roster. Next man up? let Tate walk.

I 100% agree and have been singing this tune for a while. In the Seahawk offense, it's not really meant for 4 wideouts. In fact, I don't even remember seeing 4 wideouts on 1 play. It's set up for 2 or 3 WR sets.

So, let me ask you, if you get a majority of this:

Kearse/Baldwin/Harvin
or
Kearse/Tate/Harvin

What would be a better WR set? It's really no question, it's the one with Baldwin. He is the better WR. Kearse is the "bigger" WR in this team, getting close to 6 foot. Tate is very similar to Baldwin/Harvin, of course without the WR intangibles and incredible physical ability of a Baldwin or Harvin respectfully. But let's say for the sake of argument, BAldwin and Tate are close. Why pay 5m per year for 5 years, when you can save that money, spend it on Bennett, and still have Baldwin --i.e. no drop in production?

Plus add to this that TAte's departure opens up a spot for a 1st or 2nd round WR in the draft, in a draft that is full of them. This team is missing 1 type of WR, and thats not 5'5'' Tate. It's missing a 6'5'' WR with physical presence. It's something this team sorely lacks. In a draft with Benjamin, Coleman, Robinson, etc ---a draft full of big tall WRs that would diversify this teams WR corps. So why not save your 5m per year, bring Bennett back (or a great replacement) and send TAte on his way?

That's my position if i was JS/Pete.

 

[plyka]

I prefer Baldwin. I think he does a better job at getting separation, and we can probably keep him for a second round tender. I also think he pairs better with Kearse (SE) and Harvin (slot).

Also, this draft is loaded with receivers. There will be guys with All-Pro potential available in the second round.

Keeping Baldwin is pretty much a slam dunk, so why not work on retaining Tate as well? Baldwin is a wirey workhorse that runs the best routes and has good hands, but Tate has a certain 'it' factor than none if our other WR's have.

Baldwin has peaked, IMO, wheras Tate is still very much on an upward tragectory. When you combine that with being tough, elusive and durable, it's obvious why the Hawks have made re-signing him a priority.

Don't get so preoccupied with your personal favorites that you can't remain objective.

I think the exact opposite is true. Tate has peaked and Baldwin is just spreading his wings. Tate depends 100% on physical ability. He is currently at his physical peak. He has horrible route running, he doesn't get separate despite his good speed, he doesn't use his body to shield the ball, etc. Baldwin is the exact opposite, and has a lot of growth potential in front of him.

 

[QuahHawk]

It doesn't really matter how much his per year salary is because of his guaranteed money is something we could structure so he could be cut after year 2 or 3 without major cap implications. With a back loaded salary he will have to be cut out restructured befor year 5 but get affordable years with a contract like this.
5 year 35 mil with 10 mil bonus (yr 1 and 2 salaries guaranteed makes 15 mil total guarentee) if Hartline got 5y 30 mil 12.5mil guarenteed Tate should get a tiny bit more.

Year 1: Salary 2 mil - bonus 2 mil - cap hit 4 mil
Year 2: Salary 3 mil- bonus 2 mil - cap hit 5 mil (if cut before yr 2 would be 8 mil dead money)
Year 3: salary 4 mil - bonus 2 mil - cap hit 6 mil (if cut before yr 3 would be 6 mil dead money no cap savings)
Year 4: salary 7 mil - bonus 2 mil - cap hit 9 mil (if cut befor yr 4 would be 4 mil dead money but 5 mil cap savings)
Year 5: salary 9 mil - bonus 2 mil - cap hit 11 mil (if cut befit yr 5 would be 2.5 mil dead money but 7.5 mil cap savings)

This is really more of a 3 year 16.5 mil deal. Maybe pay Tate 9 mil cap hit in yr 4 if the cap has risen, he has stayed healthy and Harvin is gone or restructured by then. Otherwise e cut him and save 5 mil cap.

Not totally sure but I think the jump in pay from year 3 to year 4 violates the 30% rule.

I wasn't aware the 30% rule was a part of the new CBA.

 

[QuahHawk]

I like Tate and wish he could stay for much cheaper. I don't feel like if we let him walk and drafted a WR early that we couldn't replace his productions with Baldwin and Kearse.
$2M- Baldwin @ 2nd round RFA tender
$570k- Kearse last yer of contract is RFA next season
$1.3M- Salary of 1st rd WR
$650K- Salary of2nd round WR

WR is a position that a QB can make a player look much better than they are, I think RW makes Tate better than he really is, I am confident that with a healthy Harvin, Baldwin, and Kearse as our top 3 WR's we would get as good or better production we did this year without a healthy Harvin and Rice. If we invest in a Talented rookie WR they wll have an opportunity right away to get plenty of touches and even bringing ina few late round or UDFA WR's will be given a shout to stick around.

I think Tate has maxed out and will only really be what his is where a guy like Kearse could end up be a much more effictive WR for us, and this rookie class is soo deep we could add a Sidney Rice type WR who can actually stay healthy. no point in payign both Baldwin adn Tate and pushing Kearse down the roster. Next man up? let Tate walk.

I 100% agree and have been singing this tune for a while. In the Seahawk offense, it's not really meant for 4 wideouts. In fact, I don't even remember seeing 4 wideouts on 1 play. It's set up for 2 or 3 WR sets.

So, let me ask you, if you get a majority of this:

Kearse/Baldwin/Harvin
or
Kearse/Tate/Harvin

What would be a better WR set? It's really no question, it's the one with Baldwin. He is the better WR. Kearse is the "bigger" WR in this team, getting close to 6 foot. Tate is very similar to Baldwin/Harvin, of course without the WR intangibles and incredible physical ability of a Baldwin or Harvin respectfully. But let's say for the sake of argument, BAldwin and Tate are close. Why pay 5m per year for 5 years, when you can save that money, spend it on Bennett, and still have Baldwin --i.e. no drop in production?

Plus add to this that TAte's departure opens up a spot for a 1st or 2nd round WR in the draft, in a draft that is full of them. This team is missing 1 type of WR, and thats not 5'5'' Tate. It's missing a 6'5'' WR with physical presence. It's something this team sorely lacks. In a draft with Benjamin, Coleman, Robinson, etc ---a draft full of big tall WRs that would diversify this teams WR corps. So why not save your 5m per year, bring Bennett back (or a great replacement) and send TAte on his way?

That's my position if i was JS/Pete.

I 'd actually prefer to see Harvin/Kearse/1st or 2nd round rookie with Baldwin as our versatile play any WR position type guy. It is hard to let Tate walk but looking at this rookie WR class the size of these guys has to be tempting and a 1st or 2nd round pick is only going ot be paid $600k-$1.5 mil per year. Tate will likely make $4-$6mil.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I have a bad feeling that Seattle is letting everyone test free agency and I can't figure out why. We have the money to sign these guys so I am mystified why we seem to be doing nothing. Last news was that Tate hasn't even gotten an offer.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I do agree with Wenhawk though. I think they're going to go after one of those big receivers in the draft.

 

[plyka]

I have a bad feeling that Seattle is letting everyone test free agency and I can't figure out why. We have the money to sign these guys so I am mystified why we seem to be doing nothing. Last news was that Tate hasn't even gotten an offer.

This is the difference between Tate and Bennett. It seems that the Hawks want Bennett, since they offered him a contract which he refused. However with Tate, it looks like they said, go test the market and didn't offer him anything. Which means they don't really think he fits on this team. Not that he isn't worth it, but that his money would just be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Cartire]

I have a bad feeling that Seattle is letting everyone test free agency and I can't figure out why. We have the money to sign these guys so I am mystified why we seem to be doing nothing. Last news was that Tate hasn't even gotten an offer.

This is the difference between Tate and Bennett. It seems that the Hawks want Bennett, since they offered him a contract which he refused. However with Tate, it looks like they said, go test the market and didn't offer him anything. Which means they don't really think he fits on this team. Not that he isn't worth it, but that his money would just be better spent elsewhere.

Hardly. I think with the bulk of WR's in free agency, and the plethora of WR's in the draft, it's actually foolish for a team to offer any contract that's not in their favor. Let Tate test free agency. I think him, and a ton of WRs are going to be very disappointed this year on the offer sheets. Teams aren't going to be offering crazy contracts this year for WRs. This way, Seattle can see what everyone else is offering and come in and match. I see a 4 year, 22 mil, with 9-10 gaurunteed. Structured with a ballon towards the end that will be an obvious restructure/cut year.

That's the max he'll get from any team, and I don't see why we wouldn't match that.

 

[JMR]

I wasn't aware the 30% rule was a part of the new CBA.

it's in section 13 I think. I was trying to read it the other day but it was giving me a headache.

 

[The Twelvethman]

I really think that if Tate asks for more than 4 per year we should let him walk, many people want him back because he is part of the beginning era of Pete Carroll but I think he is not vital to our offense. I agree that his value rises with the fact that he can also do punt returns but we have to look at how he affects out offense. There was countless times during a game when Tate would dissapear because corners would shut him out and if you look back at the pivotal moments in the season it was always Baldwin and Kearse coming out big and not Tate. I understand that he's a great guy and that he means a lot to the team but we will find ourselves in trouble if we start to over pay for our players. I would argue that we give him a contract between 3-4 per year and let him decide if he wants to get 4.5-5 on te market or stay in Seattle. If he leaves we can use that extra 5 to extend Thomas or Sherman. Tell me what ya feel about Tate?

Have not been on here in awhile but to think that Tate only disappeared in games while others showed up is ridiculous. What about the times when others didn't show up but Tate did? He is vital to our offense and being able to return punts is extra value like you said. Not everyone can show up every game, our offense is spread around between receivers which is why we won the SB without having a dominant #1. People F#@K me off saying stupid S&*T without reading what they have typed. I'm wasted & hate when people discredit our players sorry if the rest of the thread works out to be 'Tate is worth 5m'.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Tate brings way too much to the table to not give him a new deal. 5 or 6 mil a year for a guy who makes HUGE plays for this team, as a returner and WR etc. It needs to be done.

 

[BHF]

I like Tate and wish he could stay for much cheaper. I don't feel like if we let him walk and drafted a WR early that we couldn't replace his productions with Baldwin and Kearse.
$2M- Baldwin @ 2nd round RFA tender
$570k- Kearse last yer of contract is RFA next season
$1.3M- Salary of 1st rd WR
$650K- Salary of2nd round WR

WR is a position that a QB can make a player look much better than they are, I think RW makes Tate better than he really is, I am confident that with a healthy Harvin, Baldwin, and Kearse as our top 3 WR's we would get as good or better production we did this year without a healthy Harvin and Rice. If we invest in a Talented rookie WR they wll have an opportunity right away to get plenty of touches and even bringing ina few late round or UDFA WR's will be given a shout to stick around.

I think Tate has maxed out and will only really be what his is where a guy like Kearse could end up be a much more effictive WR for us, and this rookie class is soo deep we could add a Sidney Rice type WR who can actually stay healthy. no point in payign both Baldwin adn Tate and pushing Kearse down the roster. Next man up? let Tate walk.

I 100% agree and have been singing this tune for a while. In the Seahawk offense, it's not really meant for 4 wideouts. In fact, I don't even remember seeing 4 wideouts on 1 play. It's set up for 2 or 3 WR sets.

So, let me ask you, if you get a majority of this:

Kearse/Baldwin/Harvin
or
Kearse/Tate/Harvin

What would be a better WR set? It's really no question, it's the one with Baldwin. He is the better WR. Kearse is the "bigger" WR in this team, getting close to 6 foot. Tate is very similar to Baldwin/Harvin, of course without the WR intangibles and incredible physical ability of a Baldwin or Harvin respectfully. But let's say for the sake of argument, BAldwin and Tate are close. Why pay 5m per year for 5 years, when you can save that money, spend it on Bennett, and still have Baldwin --i.e. no drop in production?

Plus add to this that TAte's departure opens up a spot for a 1st or 2nd round WR in the draft, in a draft that is full of them. This team is missing 1 type of WR, and thats not 5'5'' Tate. It's missing a 6'5'' WR with physical presence. It's something this team sorely lacks. In a draft with Benjamin, Coleman, Robinson, etc ---a draft full of big tall WRs that would diversify this teams WR corps. So why not save your 5m per year, bring Bennett back (or a great replacement) and send TAte on his way?

That's my position if i was JS/Pete.

SMH. We pass out of four wide more than we do out of two wide, and we'll be passing out of that set even more if the defense slows down at all. And even haven't even got into the argument that the reason we didn't run a spread more often was because we just didn't have the talent to after Rice and Harvin went down,

 

[SoulfishHawk]

They will figure it out.

 

[Popeyejones]

We have the money to sign these guys so I am mystified why we seem to be doing nothing. Last news was that Tate hasn't even gotten an offer.

It's because you're thinking about these guys in relation to the salary cap this year, whereas the problem with resigning them in relation to the cap is next year, the year after that, and the year after that. It's not that they couldn't fit them under the cap this year, it's that they likely won't be able to fit them under the cap after Wilson, Sherman, and Thomas are resigned.

FWIW it was the same story w/ the 9ers last year. Last year Goldson, Delanie, Sopoaga and Francois could have been made to fit under the cap, but once Kaepernick, Aldon, and/or Crabtree/Iupati extend it's no longer feasible. These guys weren't allowed to walk because of an immediate need in terms of money, it was to clear room for future need. Every team with talent and cap considerations does this.

Basically, if the Hawks aren't extending these guys before FA hits on the 11th (and they might! I'm not saying that is impossible, although see above) there are only two possibilities of them coming back, one unlikely and one reasonably likely:

1) Unlikely To Come Back Scenario (although this scenario is likely to happen): The FA market for these guys is there, but lower than what they were expecting. In this scenario these players might consider a smaller offer, assuming the Hawks are making it. This is unlikely though because let's say Player X is expecting 8 million per and the market for him is 6 million per. In this scenario the Hawks likely still don't become players b/c in long term salary cap allocation the difference doesn't matter that much (why the "hometown discount" logic is regularly so silly). An example of this would be Tate. If you're right that they haven't even had any formal talks about an offer at this point, the message is that they've decided he's not in their long-term considerations (because of the cap and the impending contracts coming up), regardless of if his market is a little softer than he's expecting expecting.

Outcome: This scenario is very likely to happen for some of these guys, but the Hawks are unlikely to be in the position to do anything about it.

2) Likely to Come Back Scenario (although this scenario is unlikely to happen): The FA market for these guys is nonexistent. In this scenario these players have no reason not to come back and sign one-year "prove it" deals with the Hawks. That's wonderful for the Hawks because their salaries this year aren't a problem, it's their salaries moving forward.

Outcome: This scenario is very unlikely to happen for these guys (they're talented, they just won the Super Bowl which creates a price premium, it's a weak year for FA, the cap just unexpectedly increased, the cap floor just went into effect meaning teams w/ 50 million in cap room need to spend), but if it does happen, the Hawks are likely to do something about it and bring these guys back for one more year.

Basically, by March 11 we should have a pretty clear picture of their plans moving forward. Earlier you had said that you thought they were going to sign all of these guys AND bring in a FA to boot, but that's just simply not going to happen, and doesn't make any sense with Wilson, Sherman, and Thomas coming up for extensions sometime between today and one year from today.

 

[chrispy]

I don't see any offensive free agents, whether they're on our team or another, signing a 1 year/prove-it deal with the Hawks. I thinks it's reasonable to expect that scenario on D, however. Maybe with the exception of an O-Lineman, but you just don't hear of those guys doing that very often. You can't expect to have a statistically great year on our Offense if your at a skill position. Bennett proved (or will shortly), on D, you can cash-in with a good year and the benefit of national publicity.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^Good distinction. If Tate is forced to sign a "prove it" deal he'll do it at a place where he'll have the opportunity to put up the numbers to "prove it" (e.g. New England, Detroit, Denver, New Orleans). No way Bennett goes through that rodeo again. He already proved it, and he'll have to be satisfied with whatever the offer is (risking proving it AGAIN just doesn't make any sense).

Edit: worth saying that just as a point of comparison Goldson hit FA, didn't get what he wanted, and came back to sign a one year "prove it" deal with the 9ers. Then the next year they slapped the franchise tag on him. The year after that he went to the Bucs and got his payday.