Pay Kam

[mikeak]

Prediction...

We're one or two weeks away from a trade.

Great prediction - I agree 100%

There is no way this ends well for either side. If the team gives in, then it sets precedent and other players are pissed. If Kam gives in and comes to play, he feels disrespected and plays to "not get hurt". This is a clear lose-lose situation

A trade is giving in. So my point is that I don't see how trading him doesn't set a precedent.

The precedent I think they will set is - you have a 3-6 year career if you are lucky as a player. If you wish to spend 20% of that sitting at home then go right ahead - you will NEVER make that money back

 

[Narniaman]

Prediction...

We're one or two weeks away from a trade.

Yeah, except for one problem. . .

Kam Chancellor has, pure and simple, become a cancer.

The only thing that any team taking Kam Chancellor would be able to reasonably expect is that Kam Chancellor would be more than happy to hold out for more money . . . any time he so felt like it, the team's fortunes be damned.

With Kam, who is a multi-millionaire, showing his true nature these last few weeks . . . how in the world could any team trust him to perform. . .and not for him to decide to go on another hold-out, maybe in the middle of a season instead of in pre-season?

The only way Kam will play any more professional football games if he comes crawling on his hands and knees back tot he Seahawks and begs for forgiveness and reinstatement. Even the most desperate NFL cellar dweller isn't going to want to have a cancer transplanted into their organization. . . . .

 

[Sgt. Largent]

If the Hawks don't to set a bad precedent by giving Kam a new deal, then why would another team also tear up the last three years of his deal in a trade. Doesn't that also set a bad precedent for the league?

I'd say a trade is off the table unless this goes into next off season, or Kam comes back in week 10 to get his year in and is a pain in the ass.

 

[justafan]

Prediction...

We're one or two weeks away from a trade.

Prediction. If that happens. Seahawks fans will be disappointed with the return of said trade. Because it wont involve a first round pick.

SS is undervalued in NFL
Kam Chancellor has a large contract for a SS.
Kam Chancellor would be demanding more money for said new team
New Team has now missed 2 games of his production of a remaining 48 thus losing 4% or his remaining contract as of today and counting.
Kam Chancellor is coming off an injury

Maybe the Seahawks get a 2nd and 6th at best... Most likely something with a 3rd round pick and some other mid-late round pick.

Absolutely. Giving up 1st rd picks for Harvin and Graham were the exception to common trade value in Today's NFL.

The way I understand the contract is if he is traded today the Hawks would be on the hook for all guaranteed money left on the deal.I think its his 2015 salary and his 3 mill in signing bonus still left.They wouldnt see any benefit in cap space to sign anyone or pay the player we traded for.
I might be wrong but I think its a sticking point for a trade.

I think the whole contact was 17 mil guarenteed. not 7.8

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Prediction...

We're one or two weeks away from a trade.

Great prediction - I agree 100%

There is no way this ends well for either side. If the team gives in, then it sets precedent and other players are pissed. If Kam gives in and comes to play, he feels disrespected and plays to "not get hurt". This is a clear lose-lose situation

A trade is giving in. So my point is that I don't see how trading him doesn't set a precedent.

The precedent I think they will set is - you have a 3-6 year career if you are lucky as a player. If you wish to spend 20% of that sitting at home then go right ahead - you will NEVER make that money back

Not necessarily.

The new mantra for this team needs to be, 'you either want to play for this team or you don't.' There are countless top pro's who would love to play in Seattle. Fantastic facilities at the VMAC. Terrific players coach. Great homefield advantage. And more than anything -- a track record of winning.

If one or two others call for a trade next year because Chancellor is moved, tell them they can go for the right price.

New England did this several times and actually managed to accumulate some nice draft stock in the process.

If the Seahawks have to lose one or two stars to avoid this nonsense every year, so be it. I'd back Schneider to find solutions in the draft.

 

[Hasselbeck]

I am so torn with this debacle.
Pay Kam and have a decent shot at hoisting the 50th Lombardi on 49er turf.
Trade Kam to the Saints and get Max back. :stirthepot:
Don't give in to Kam and pray this never ending distraction won't affect future Lombardi's.

There's no way the Saints would give Unger up for a guy demanding to tear up his deal

Really no team is going to give us anything close to what he's worth. If you thought Percy had no value on the trade market, Chancellor at this point has even less.

We'd be lucky to get a 6th for him at this point. The only reason you trade Kam at this point is if the FO determines this whole thing is too much of a distraction and headache to deal with any more.

 

[SeahawkPQ]

The problem with guaranteeing contracts is the violent nature of the NFL. Sure, there is plenty of money flowing around and guaranteed contracts wouldn't bankrupt any team; but with the hard salary cap injuries could really kill a teams competitive opportunities for years. And a highly competitive league is the reason there is so much money flowing in. Let the inmates run the asylum and you put that at risk.

You could make exceptions in the salary caps for injuries, but the second you do that players will start faking injuries to get away from bad teams (without losing a dime) and teams would try and do the same to skirt the salary cap hits they take when cutting players.

Long story short; Salary cap + frequent serious career affecting injuries makes guaranteed contracts infeasible

 

[marko358]

For someone who wants more guaranteed money because of injury risks, probably not the best idea to skip the entire pre-season and regular season games to get what he wants. He'll likely increase the odds of an injury when he comes back.

 

[c_hawkbob]

The problem with guaranteeing contracts is the violent nature of the NFL. Sure, there is plenty of money flowing around and guaranteed contracts wouldn't bankrupt any team; but with the hard salary cap injuries could really kill a teams competitive opportunities for years. And a highly competitive league is the reason there is so much money flowing in. Let the inmates run the asylum and you put that at risk.

You could make exceptions in the salary caps for injuries, but the second you do that players will start faking injuries to get away from bad teams (without losing a dime) and teams would try and do the same to skirt the salary cap hits they take when cutting players.

Long story short; Salary cap + frequent serious career affecting injuries makes guaranteed contracts infeasible

Certainly if guaranteed contracts started to become the norm the salary cap would need adjustment in the next CBA, but as long as the NFL maintains their revenue sharing (the real key to what makes the NFL business model work) guaranteed contracts would work just fine. There's way more than enough profit margin to make it all work.

 

[Silver Hawk]

Think players half-ass it once they get paid now? Just imagine what it would be like with fully guaranteed contracts. NO incentive to take the abuse. Sure, there will be players that bust their ass because they love the game, but that is far from true for a substantial percentage of NFL players.

Yeah, that's the way I would see it too. The profile of the NFL is what it is, due in large part to non guaranteed contracts. I've always thought that. Guarantee the contracts and the level of play will decline.

 

[SomersetHawk]

Fun read/watch... http://www.fieldgulls.com/2015/9/17/934 ... stion-mark

 

[BlueTalon]

A trade is giving in. So my point is that I don't see how trading him doesn't set a precedent.

Depends on the trade. I keep seeing posts suggesting the best we could get for Kam in a trade is a 4th or a 6th, and I just don't believe that at all. The Seahawks have obviously made their decision about moving on with Kam sitting at home, still on the team. They are not actively shopping him (that we know of). But that doesn't mean they wouldn't listen to an offer from a team that is desperate for help. It's a seller's market. I can easily imagine a marginal team with cap room having a DB go down, and deciding they can make Kam happier than he is now with a new contract, and that he is worth giving up a high price for.

In other words, trading Kam wouldn't be a clearance sale, which would set a bad precedent. It would be taking advantage of a deal that is too good to pass up, which would not be a bad precedent to set.

As a matter of fact, that precedent has already been set, with the Joey Galloway trade. Granted, that was a different regime, different CBA, etc. But it was the same situation -- a malcontent key player wanting a new deal, and Seahawks in a position where they had to do something without setting a bad precedent and opening Pandora's Box. The same situation we are in now.

If the Hawks don't to set a bad precedent by giving Kam a new deal, then why would another team also tear up the last three years of his deal in a trade. Doesn't that also set a bad precedent for the league?

That sort of thing wouldn't be a precedent. Reworking a contract to facilitate a trade happens all the time. Number of years left on a contract doesn't matter in that case.

 

[BlueTalon]

With Kam, who is a multi-millionaire, showing his true nature these last few weeks . . . how in the world could any team trust him to perform. . .and not for him to decide to go on another hold-out, maybe in the middle of a season instead of in pre-season?

Even the most desperate NFL cellar dweller isn't going to want to have a cancer transplanted into their organization. . . . .

The answer to that of course is that teams, rightly or wrongly, conclude that what makes a player a cancer to one team doesn't necessarily translate to a new team, especially if the cause of the cancer is a perceived lack of respect due to not being paid what the player thinks he's worth. New team thinks if they pay the player enough for him to be happy, and provides an atmosphere where the player is respected, the cancer goes away.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

I know this is going to be a terribly unpopular thing to say, but maybe the NFL just needs to start guaranteeing contracts like everybody else, that would eliminate all this crap.

Back when the League profits were measured in the hundreds of thousands it was not feasible to guarantee contracts for such a dangerous sport, but with profits now in the billions, and with all the scrutinuy on the NFL taking care of it's retired players with medical issues (especially brain related), it's time to make the change.

It wouldn't break my heart if we were the ones to open that Pandora's box for Kam

yep.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

A trade is giving in. So my point is that I don't see how trading him doesn't set a precedent.

Depends on the trade. I keep seeing posts suggesting the best we could get for Kam in a trade is a 4th or a 6th, and I just don't believe that at all. The Seahawks have obviously made their decision about moving on with Kam sitting at home, still on the team. They are not actively shopping him (that we know of). But that doesn't mean they wouldn't listen to an offer from a team that is desperate for help. It's a seller's market. I can easily imagine a marginal team with cap room having a DB go down, and deciding they can make Kam happier than he is now with a new contract, and that he is worth giving up a high price for.

In other words, trading Kam wouldn't be a clearance sale, which would set a bad precedent. It would be taking advantage of a deal that is too good to pass up, which would not be a bad precedent to set.

As a matter of fact, that precedent has already been set, with the Joey Galloway trade. Granted, that was a different regime, different CBA, etc. But it was the same situation -- a malcontent key player wanting a new deal, and Seahawks in a position where they had to do something without setting a bad precedent and opening Pandora's Box. The same situation we are in now.

If the Hawks don't to set a bad precedent by giving Kam a new deal, then why would another team also tear up the last three years of his deal in a trade. Doesn't that also set a bad precedent for the league?

That sort of thing wouldn't be a precedent. Reworking a contract to facilitate a trade happens all the time. Number of years left on a contract doesn't matter in that case.

And let's recall now that boy oh boy, seahawks didn't set a bad precedent when they traded Galloway. They just lost a really good player and set their playoff chances back five years.

So they shot themselves in the foot, but hey, they didn't set a bad precedent. Way to win.

 

[Hawkpower]

With Kam, who is a multi-millionaire, showing his true nature these last few weeks . . . how in the world could any team trust him to perform. . .and not for him to decide to go on another hold-out, maybe in the middle of a season instead of in pre-season?

Even the most desperate NFL cellar dweller isn't going to want to have a cancer transplanted into their organization. . . . .

The answer to that of course is that teams, rightly or wrongly, conclude that what makes a player a cancer to one team doesn't necessarily translate to a new team, especially if the cause of the cancer is a perceived lack of respect due to not being paid what the player thinks he's worth. New team thinks if they pay the player enough for him to be happy, and provides an atmosphere where the player is respected, the cancer goes away.

I find it hilarious that Kam (and some fans here) think Kam is being "disrespected" in this.

When he signed the deal, we all thought the FO was nuts for giving him such a contract....there were multiple threads here saying as such.

Now, a few dozen months later, he is somehow disrespected by the same said deal?

Some are hoping he finds an atmosphere where he is respected?

What a joke. He was the king here 2 short months ago. He brought this on himself.

 

[canfan]

Can't pay him or every player who thinks he has outplayed his contract will be sitting out (and they ALL think they outplay their contracts)

Can't trade him because players will see that as an alternate path to the cash. The Seahawks might not be able to pay a guy, but if he remains a big enough pain in the ass they can send him off to somebody who will give him the cash.

Frankly, I don't think it matters if the Seahawks go 7-9. If you are in this for the long haul, you can't mortgage your future stability for a swing in the win/loss record in 2015. Kam needs to come in and report for practice before anything else happens. If he does that, the team will find a way for him to salvage his pride, but in a way that the rest of the team knows the pain is definitely not worth the gain. If he won't do that, expect him to show up in week 10 to meet the minimum requirements to roll the clock over on his contract and be a distraction. He is being incredibly stubborn about this and I don't see it ending well.

P.S.: he has reportedly pissed off Paul Allen as well. Somehow, that does not seem like a very good idea to me.

 

[HawkerD]

I know this is going to be a terribly unpopular thing to say, but maybe the NFL just needs to start guaranteeing contracts like everybody else, that would eliminate all this crap.

Back when the League profits were measured in the hundreds of thousands it was not feasible to guarantee contracts for such a dangerous sport, but with profits now in the billions, and with all the scrutinuy on the NFL taking care of it's retired players with medical issues (especially brain related), it's time to make the change.

It wouldn't break my heart if we were the ones to open that Pandora's box for Kam

Is the NFL's "model" at fault here or the player who is making mind numbingly weird decisions?

'

You think these guys are going to Ball out if their contract is guaranteed? Nah...just ball out in a contract year for another big payday. The whole "compete" philosophy gets thrown out the window because you have to pay out on those guarantees. The quality of play would suffer immensely. What should happen is other sports should follow the NFL model.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

With Kam, who is a multi-millionaire, showing his true nature these last few weeks . . . how in the world could any team trust him to perform. . .and not for him to decide to go on another hold-out, maybe in the middle of a season instead of in pre-season? .

I don't think this is fair. I think most of us are fine with players asking for more money..........................at the right time in their contract, and at the right time in their career/play.

If Kam would come back, kick some ass, have a great year and most importantly stay healthy. THEN he has some leverage next off season or in 2017. Now? Zero leverage.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

The problem with guaranteeing contracts is the violent nature of the NFL. Sure, there is plenty of money flowing around and guaranteed contracts wouldn't bankrupt any team; but with the hard salary cap injuries could really kill a teams competitive opportunities for years. And a highly competitive league is the reason there is so much money flowing in. Let the inmates run the asylum and you put that at risk.

You could make exceptions in the salary caps for injuries, but the second you do that players will start faking injuries to get away from bad teams (without losing a dime) and teams would try and do the same to skirt the salary cap hits they take when cutting players.

Long story short; Salary cap + frequent serious career affecting injuries makes guaranteed contracts infeasible

Certainly if guaranteed contracts started to become the norm the salary cap would need adjustment in the next CBA, but as long as the NFL maintains their revenue sharing (the real key to what makes the NFL business model work) guaranteed contracts would work just fine. There's way more than enough profit margin to make it all work.

I don't think it can be done because there is a hard salary cap in the NFL. The NBA or MLB can have fully guaranteed contracts because they do not have hard salary caps. This comes in to play when teams cut players.

The NFL free agency landscape would change dramatically because teams would have to hold on to underperforming players because there is no benefit of cutting them (i.e. they would count against the cap the same as if they are on the team or not). You would see shorter contracts with lower APY because teams getting caught in bad contracts would be disastrous to their salary cap.