Much rather have Tate then Harvin

[Throwdown]

Either way, to quote Stephan A. Smith when he talks about that chump QB from GB.

Percy Harvin is a baddd baaad bad man

 

[sc85sis]

"Lord have mercy! It's Percy."

 

[Natethegreat]

Yes, we gave up three picks. However, one was quid pro quo in exchange for Harvin himself--a pick for a player. Only the third and seventh were extra picks that could be counted as "lost" in that trade.

Unless you work for the Seahawks, you cannot definitively state that Tate is gone because of Harvin's salary. Someone is gone as a result, but it may or may not be Tate.

I get what you are saying, but all I'm trying to point out is the total cost of what acquiring Harvin was/is. The first pick is definitely part of that cost.
His 13 mill+ per year contract is also part of that cost. When it comes time to pay Russel, Sherman, and Thomas, that contract is going to hamper us greatly(hence the cuts we have seen so far and will likely see next year. I.E. possibly Lynch Mebane etc. plus letting Tate walk). Over all I don't see Harvins' value being nearly that great. Especially with his injuries taken into account.

Think of this, Thomas will not make as much as Harvin. Sherman will most likely not make as much as Harvin. Do you guys think that Harvin has as much value on our team as those two guys?

He is/was very costly and so far has hardly reached the field. Will he next year? I hope so.

 

[HansGruber]

How is it not close ?? Football is about consistency as well as production .

Tate's consistency far outwieghs Harvins production. IMHO

I'm in agreement with you completely. Have never understood signing him to that huge 16m/yr contract. The guy never even played a down here. And we gave up multiple picks. Ugh.

Also, I'm sick of hearing about Harvin's potential. Tate actually got it done, for $10m/yr less. That's enough to extend Earl Thomas.

Percy Harvin >= Golden Tate + Earl Thomas????

Not even close.

 

[sc85sis]

Honestly, Nate, I don't think we're as far apart on this as I suspect you think we are. There is without a doubt a huge cost and some risk to the Harvin trade. But Pete and John knew that when they made the trade and felt the potential reward was worth that risk.

That cost isn't my issue in this thread--it's the suggestion that we lost Tate solely because of acquiring Harvin. We can't know that. It's equally likely that Pete and John assigned him a certain value and weren't willing to exceed it regardless of the cap situation.

 

[OffseasonChampions]

How is it not close ?? Football is about consistency as well as production .

Tate's consistency far outwieghs Harvins production. IMHO

I'm in agreement with you completely. Have never understood signing him to that huge 16m/yr contract. The guy never even played a down here. And we gave up multiple picks. Ugh.

Also, I'm sick of hearing about Harvin's potential. Tate actually got it done, for $10m/yr less. That's enough to extend Earl Thomas.

Percy Harvin >= Golden Tate + Earl Thomas????

Not even close.

16 Million/year? WTF it averages out to about 10.5 Mil a year. 6 years/64 Mil is not 16 Mil a year. 25.5 Guaranteed. Basically it was a 3 year contract.

 

[volsunghawk]

Yes, we gave up three picks. However, one was quid pro quo in exchange for Harvin himself--a pick for a player. Only the third and seventh were extra picks that could be counted as "lost" in that trade.

Unless you work for the Seahawks, you cannot definitively state that Tate is gone because of Harvin's salary. Someone is gone as a result, but it may or may not be Tate.

I get what you are saying, but all I'm trying to point out is the total cost of what acquiring Harvin was/is. The first pick is definitely part of that cost.
His 13 mill+ per year contract is also part of that cost. When it comes time to pay Russel, Sherman, and Thomas, that contract is going to hamper us greatly(hence the cuts we have seen so far and will likely see next year. I.E. possibly Lynch Mebane etc. plus letting Tate walk). Over all I don't see Harvins' value being nearly that great. Especially with his injuries taken into account.

Think of this, Thomas will not make as much as Harvin. Sherman will most likely not make as much as Harvin. Do you guys think that Harvin has as much value on our team as those two guys?

He is/was very costly and so far has hardly reached the field. Will he next year? I hope so.

Do you lament the lost first-rounder when we spend it to DRAFT a guy? It's the same principle.

And I'll go right on ahead and say that if Harvin returns to and stays at full health, he improves the entire offense on a level that few players in the entire league can. If Earl is the leader of the defense and Russell is the leader of the offense, then Sherman and Harvin will both function as the spark plugs on each side of the ball.

 

[Scottemojo]

Yes, we gave up three picks. However, one was quid pro quo in exchange for Harvin himself--a pick for a player. Only the third and seventh were extra picks that could be counted as "lost" in that trade.

Unless you work for the Seahawks, you cannot definitively state that Tate is gone because of Harvin's salary. Someone is gone as a result, but it may or may not be Tate.

I get what you are saying, but all I'm trying to point out is the total cost of what acquiring Harvin was/is. The first pick is definitely part of that cost.
His 13 mill+ per year contract is also part of that cost. When it comes time to pay Russel, Sherman, and Thomas, that contract is going to hamper us greatly(hence the cuts we have seen so far and will likely see next year. I.E. possibly Lynch Mabane etc. plus letting Tate walk). Over all I don't see Harvins' value being nearly that great. Especially with his injuries taken into account.

Think of this, Thomas will not make as much as Harvin. Sherman will most likely not make as much as Harvin. Do you guys think that Harvin has as much value on our team as those two guys?

He is/was very costly and so far has hardly reached the field. Will he next year? I hope so.

Or you could look at it this way: How much cap is it worth to add 4 net points to your team? Because that is about what I think Harvin will be worth in the grand scheme of things.

I know, he only played in three games last year. He freaked out the DC in each and every game. What is the price you put on that? The Cardinals, Niners and Rams have yet to face him even one time, you best believe they are planning for it right now. What is the price you put on that?



Like it or not, Harvin is in Seattle until 2016 at least, when you look at his contract details.

 

[MVP53]

You are assuming that John and Pete would have been willing to pay Golden more if they'd had more cap room. We don't know that. That extra cap might have gone to Red or Clem or to sign Melton or some other free agent. It could have been used to lock down Earl or Sherm this year. Saying we lost Golden because of Harvin is a logical fallacy.

Now you can make the argument that Percy is not worth the cap hit or the third and seventh round picks we lost in the trade. However, to do so based on an assumption that Percy will never be healthy is also illogical, unless you have a time machine and can categorically state that as fact.

The true value or lack thereof in acquiring Percy won't be known for a couple of years.

It is hardly logical fallacy when the guy with the massive contract(and yes it is massive) holds the same roster spot as the guy who moved on. And again we lost a first, a third, and a seventh, for Harvin not just a third and seventh.

Your argument would make more sense if football teams started just 1 WR.

 

[Natethegreat]

Honestly, Nate, I don't think we're as far apart on this as I suspect you think we are. There is without a doubt a huge cost and some risk to the Harvin trade. But Pete and John knew that when they made the trade and felt the potential reward was worth that risk.

That cost isn't my issue in this thread--it's the suggestion that we lost Tate solely because of acquiring Harvin. We can't know that. It's equally likely that Pete and John assigned him a certain value and weren't willing to exceed it regardless of the cap situation.

I would agree that Pete and John gave him a value and Detroit paid him well over that. Would you not also agree that if Harvin was not here that Tate would be more valuable to this team and we would also have 13 million more in cap space to work with? Actually 26 million because of his salary last year.
Anyway I have been beating this to death and I hope we do start getting some value from Harvin next year.

GO HAWKS!!!!

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

Here's a way to look at Percy Harvin:

In 2009, we picked Aaron Curry with the #4 overall pick in the draft, a value of 1,800 points.

In 2012, we picked up Percy Harvin with the #25, #214 of last year's draft and #96 from this year's draft, a value of 841.8 points, and that's not subtracting any devaluation which occurs with trading future a future year's picks as we did with the #96 pick.

Feel better now, doubters?

 

[RolandDeschain]

This thread is making me wish for an all-out worldwide nuclear war.

 

[hawknation2014]

16 Million/year? WTF it averages out to about 10.5 Mil a year. 6 years/64 Mil is not 16 Mil a year. 25.5 Guaranteed. Basically it was a 3 year contract.

2014- $13.4 million ($9.6 million in dead money if released).
2015- $12.9 million ($7.2 million in dead money if released).
2016- $12.3 million ($4.8 million in dead money if released).
2017- $12.35 million ($2.4 million in dead money if released).

If they release Harvin before the 2016 season, he will still count at least $4.8 million in dead money against the cap. Huge salaried, long-term deals create lots of dead money when the player is eventually released.

Harvin is going to have to be extremely productive to justify these costs. And he has the chance to do that. When he is on the field, he is much more dynamic than Tate or just about any other player in the league.

 

[OffseasonChampions]

Here's a way to look at Percy Harvin:

In 2009, we picked Aaron Curry with the #4 overall pick in the draft, a value of 1,800 points.

In 2012, we picked up Percy Harvin with the #25, #214 of last year's draft and #96 from this year's draft, a value of 841.8 points, and that's not subtracting any devaluation which occurs with trading future a future year's picks as we did with the #96 pick.

Feel better now, doubters?

Nope, Xavier Rhodes and the upcoming 3rd round pick for the Vikings will lead them to a dominating Super Bowl Victory. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[hawknation2014]

Here's a way to look at Percy Harvin:

In 2009, we picked Aaron Curry with the #4 overall pick in the draft, a value of 1,800 points.

In 2012, we picked up Percy Harvin with the #25, #214 of last year's draft and #96 from this year's draft, a value of 841.8 points, and that's not subtracting any devaluation which occurs with trading future a future year's picks as we did with the #96 pick.

Feel better now, doubters?

Nope, Xavier Rhodes and the upcoming 3rd round pick for the Vikings will lead them to a dominating Super Bowl Victory. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You also can't assume Carroll/Schneider would have made the same bad decisions with their draft picks as Minnesota did. We probably would have done a better job capitalizing on those picks. That's an opportunity cost, but it could be worth it if Harvin justifies these costs with serious production in 2014 and 2015.

 

[MVP53]

You are assuming that John and Pete would have been willing to pay Golden more if they'd had more cap room. We don't know that. That extra cap might have gone to Red or Clem or to sign Melton or some other free agent. It could have been used to lock down Earl or Sherm this year. Saying we lost Golden because of Harvin is a logical fallacy.

Now you can make the argument that Percy is not worth the cap hit or the third and seventh round picks we lost in the trade. However, to do so based on an assumption that Percy will never be healthy is also illogical, unless you have a time machine and can categorically state that as fact.

The true value or lack thereof in acquiring Percy won't be known for a couple of years.

It is hardly logical fallacy when the guy with the massive contract(and yes it is massive) holds the same roster spot as the guy who moved on. And again we lost a first, a third, and a seventh, for Harvin not just a third and seventh.

No. He is being counted by the team as the first round pick. Pete was quite clear on that.

You also can't automatically equate Harvin to Tate and say we lost one for the other. That would only be true if we traded Tate as part if the original Harvin deal. You are conflating two different transactions.

Oh boy, we gave three picks for Harvin. They were a first, a third, and a seventh, this is a fact. No amount of fantasy land theorizing changes this fact. That is what we gave for Harvin period.
Given his massive contract and duplicity(and excluding his health, superiority) to Tate it made absolutely no sense for us to retain Tate. Harvin is the reason Tate is gone, I can't say this as a fact like the picks but to anyone with any amount of logic and honesty it is quite obvious.

Harvin's duplicity to Tate? That's kind of like saying the M's shouldn't have signed Robinson Cano because they had Nick Franklin on the roster.

 

[plyka]

Harvin did far more in 2 Postseason games than Tate did in 3.

When healthy, there is no comparison about who the better player is.

To be fair to the OP, I think even he recognizes this unequivocal fact. He then attempts to get by the fact by throwing the health qualifier into the conversation. When he saw that even that would not make up for the massive gulf between the two, he threw in cost as a qualifier (Tate + 1st round pick plus 3rd round, etc). So the OP has backed off quite a bit to his credit. He only has one more step to take --i was wrong, Tate is no where close to Percy.

 

[OffseasonChampions]

Here's a way to look at Percy Harvin:

In 2009, we picked Aaron Curry with the #4 overall pick in the draft, a value of 1,800 points.

In 2012, we picked up Percy Harvin with the #25, #214 of last year's draft and #96 from this year's draft, a value of 841.8 points, and that's not subtracting any devaluation which occurs with trading future a future year's picks as we did with the #96 pick.

Feel better now, doubters?

Nope, Xavier Rhodes and the upcoming 3rd round pick for the Vikings will lead them to a dominating Super Bowl Victory. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You also can't assume Carroll/Schneider would have made the same bad decisions with their draft picks as Minnesota did. We probably would have done a better job capitalizing on those picks. That's an opportunity cost, but it could be worth it if Harvin justifies these costs with serious production in 2014 and 2015.

He could have the same production in 2014 and I would be satisfied. If he sits out the whole regular season but helps us win a Super Bowl in the playoffs I'm all for it.

 

[Uncle Si]

How is it not close ?? Football is about consistency as well as production .

Tate's consistency far outwieghs Harvins production. IMHO

I'm in agreement with you completely. Have never understood signing him to that huge 16m/yr contract. The guy never even played a down here. And we gave up multiple picks. Ugh.

Also, I'm sick of hearing about Harvin's potential. Tate actually got it done, for $10m/yr less. That's enough to extend Earl Thomas.

Percy Harvin >= Golden Tate + Earl Thomas????

Not even close.

you again in a Percy thread... not even a Super Bowl could keep you away.

you're sick of hearing about Harvin's "potential"?

Look at his career stats as compared to tate's. Dont fixate on his injury this season. just look at what he does. anyone can get hurt. he did. he's back.

comparing the two is simply ridiculous. again, comparing Tate/Patterson (which is to say we would even had taken him) makes some sense. comparing the two straight up? stop...

 

[hawknation2014]

Here's a way to look at Percy Harvin:

In 2009, we picked Aaron Curry with the #4 overall pick in the draft, a value of 1,800 points.

In 2012, we picked up Percy Harvin with the #25, #214 of last year's draft and #96 from this year's draft, a value of 841.8 points, and that's not subtracting any devaluation which occurs with trading future a future year's picks as we did with the #96 pick.

Feel better now, doubters?

Nope, Xavier Rhodes and the upcoming 3rd round pick for the Vikings will lead them to a dominating Super Bowl Victory. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You also can't assume Carroll/Schneider would have made the same bad decisions with their draft picks as Minnesota did. We probably would have done a better job capitalizing on those picks. That's an opportunity cost, but it could be worth it if Harvin justifies these costs with serious production in 2014 and 2015.

He could have the same production in 2014 and I would be satisfied. If he sits out the whole regular season but helps us win a Super Bowl in the playoffs I'm all for it.

If we win another Super Bowl, then any decision is moot. We could have won the Super Bowl last year without Harvin. We could pay Lindsay Lohan $13.4 million to perform services on the bench, if we are going to win the Super Bowl anyway. But then that salary continues into 2015 and 2016. At some point, Harvin needs to really produce on the field to rationally justify his enormous cost.