Rumor: Seahawks talking to Giants about Kam trade

[Sgt. Largent]

According to the recent FG article - it isn't that Kam has the best deal anyway.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2015/9/8/9274 ... ney-doofus

Is it really true that his contract has no/few performance incentives?? (Or am I reading that wrong?)

It also should be pointed out that contracts (AGAIN) that contracts are one way. Everyone freaks out when a player does not honor a contract, but when they do what they did to Zach Miller, nobody bats an eye. I didn't hear "But he has a contract!!" from all the Seahawk fans that were aghast when the Seahawks forced Miller to take a pay reduction, because of performance #s he did not hit primarily because we forced him to stay in and block instead of catch the ball.

And finally, SS is apparently undervalued by the NFL. Not sure that is validation that it should be. Our team RELIES on safeties as the advantage, just like it relies on the Running game...also undervalued by other teams.

Kam has every right to be upset when he is clearly as important as Earl, Lynch, Wilson and Sherman in impact on our success, but has a deal that does not compensate him in a way that assures we won't Zach Miller him if we get the chance. I can understand wanting the assurance.

Considering what he brought to the table for this team and how key he has been to attending 2 SBs and winning one, we should be happy to get him however we can. Without Kam we don't win that SF game that sent up to the SB and then certainly do not beat Carolina or even GB last year.

Even if this is all true, Kam and his agent knew the parameters of his contract when he signed..............and everyone forgets two years ago when the contract was signed EVERYONE I knew was wondering why we gave so much money to this 3rd year player who was still a relatively unknown commodity at the time.

Kam wasn't Kam at the end of 2012, but Pete and John knew what they had, and wanted Kam to be the first player of their core players to be handsomely rewarded to show the others that they'll be taken care of in due time.

So Kam was just fine accepting all that guaranteed cash and bonus money the first two years, now he wants another monster deal with three years left? Nope, NEVER has worked that way..............and never will.

 

[Basis4day]

https://web.archive.org/web/20130201022 ... hancellor/

Here is the same source Scientist is using, but showing it as it looked before his contract extension. His base salary was going to be $1,323,000 in 2013. As part of his new deal, his 2013 base salary was bumped up to $2,825,000. He didn't just keep the same base salary as his first contract and collect his signing bonus in 2013. The 2013 base numbers were re-worked.

Russell Wilson's contract actually went in the other direction. He was set to make base $1,542,000 this year. His 2014 numbers were re-worked and his base is actually only 700,000 now.

Wilson Current:
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seah ... ll-wilson/

Wilson Old:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150715031 ... ll-wilson/

 

[onanygivensunday]

Regardless of whether he's one-year in or two-years in, the key point is... he has three years remaining on his contract extension... 2015, 2016 and 2017.

 

[Fade]

https://web.archive.org/web/20130201022245/http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/kam-chancellor/

Here is the same source Scientist is using, but showing it as it looked before his contract extension. His base salary was going to be $1,323,000 in 2013. As part of his new deal, his 2013 base salary was bumped up to $2,825,000. He didn't just keep the same base salary as his first contract and collect his signing bonus in 2013. The 2013 base numbers were re-worked.

Russell Wilson's contract actually went in the other direction. He was set to make base $1,542,000 this year. His 2014 numbers were re-worked and his base is actually only 700,000 now.

Wilson Current:
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seah ... ll-wilson/

Wilson Old:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150715031 ... ll-wilson/

Yes I pointed that out.

Seattle does 4 year extensions, but signing bonus' can be prorated 5 years so they use the last year of the rookie deal to spread the money out, sometimes teams make little tweaks to the final rookie base salary for cap reasons, but it is still technically a 4 year extension. And is reported as a 4 year extension too funnily enough.

 

[Spleenhawk2.0]

@ The Scientist
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/kam-chancellor/
in that link you provided it says

Contract: 4 yr(s) / $28,002,008 Signing Bonus $5,000,000 Average Salary$7,000,502

2014
---------------------KAM is here. He has only played 1 year of his extension.
2015

2016

2017

would be the 4 years.

Sorry Scientist, but you I believe you are wrong.

The link you provided multiple times makes the case for Fade and for hawknation2015

He signed his extension prior to the 2013 season. It clearly is/was a 4 year extension, If the Hawks had "tore up" the final year of his rookie deal, the new contract would have concluded at the end of the 2016 season, not the 2017 season. It is exactly how Fade demonstrated....

The Seahawks did not tear up his rookie deal, but gave him an extension. His rookie deal finished (with the added benefit of the bonus and extension money added) in 2013, and started the first year of his new deal this past year - 2014.

It has been 2 years since he signed his new contract, but only one year of actual "new" contract.

At least that is how I understand it

 

[LoneHawkFan]

@ The Scientist
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/kam-chancellor/
in that link you provided it says

Contract: 4 yr(s) / $28,002,008 Signing Bonus $5,000,000 Average Salary$7,000,502

2014
---------------------KAM is here. He has only played 1 year of his extension.
2015

2016

2017

would be the 4 years.

Truth.

 

[Basis4day]

@ The Scientist
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/kam-chancellor/
in that link you provided it says

Contract: 4 yr(s) / $28,002,008 Signing Bonus $5,000,000 Average Salary$7,000,502

2014
---------------------KAM is here. He has only played 1 year of his extension.
2015

2016

2017

would be the 4 years.

Sorry Scientist, but you I believe you are wrong.

The link you provided multiple times makes the case for Fade and for hawknation2015

He signed his extension prior to the 2013 season. It clearly is/was a 4 year extension, If the Hawks had "tore up" the final year of his rookie deal, the new contract would have concluded at the end of the 2016 season, not the 2017 season. It is exactly how Fade demonstrated....

The Seahawks did not tear up his rookie deal, but gave him an extension. His rookie deal finished (with the added benefit of the bonus and extension money added) in 2013, and started the first year of his new deal this past year - 2014.

It has been 2 years since he signed his new contract, but only one year of actual "new" contract.

At least that is how I understand it

I think the difference in the Hawknation/Fade vs Scientist view is one side is looking at this in terms of years of club control while the other is looking at old contract vs new contract figures.

Kam did sign a contract extension (as he was under contract for 2013 regardless), but the terms of his 2013 contract's base salary were reworked in his new deal.

 

[Cyrus12]

like Bellicheat said last year...were moving on to Bailey...Done with Kam and the threads until he comes back or doesn't...got nothing good to say about the situation or the player at this moment...

 

[Fade]

I think the difference in the Hawknation/Fade vs Scientist view is one side is looking at this in terms of years of club control while the other is looking at old contract vs new contract figures.

Kam did sign a contract extension (as he was under contract for 2013 regardless), but the terms of his 2013 contract's base salary were reworked in his new deal.

Nope he said Kam's contract was torn up. Which is incorrect.
He signed an extension in 2013 that started in 2014.

Just like RW who signed an extension in 2015 that starts in 2016.

 

[Narniaman]

http://www.king5.com/story/sports/n...-no-interest-trading-kam-chancellor/71869626/

What if Kam sits out the entire season??...

Then he'll still have 3 years left on his deal. He doesn't gain anything by sitting out the whole year. He'll be right back where he started, just a lot lighter in his wallet.

Okay, a few questions. . .

Let's say that Kam doesn't play at all this year. . . obviously, he's not going to be paid the $5 million or $7 million or whatever he would otherwise get. What happens to that money as far as the cap is concerned? Does it get moved ahead and added to Seattle's cap next year?

Now as far as Kam having three years remaining on his contract next year. . . does that mean since this year is guaranteed, and he doesn't play. . . than next year will be guaranteed for Kam if he decides to come back, since the Seahawks will still have him under contract for three years?? Let's say if that happens that the Seahawks decide that Kam is no longer quite worth the money. . .could they cut him without a cap hit?? Or would that be guaranteed money?

 

[Basis4day]

I think the difference in the Hawknation/Fade vs Scientist view is one side is looking at this in terms of years of club control while the other is looking at old contract vs new contract figures.

Kam did sign a contract extension (as he was under contract for 2013 regardless), but the terms of his 2013 contract's base salary were reworked in his new deal.

Nope he said Kam's contract was torn up. Which is incorrect.
He signed an extension in 2013 that started in 2014.

Just like RW who signed an extension in 2015 that starts in 2016.

Sorry, i was referring to this:

He did sign the extension before the final year of his rookie deal in 2013, but no part of his rookie contract was "torn up." They merely added the prorated portion of the signing bonus onto the final year of that deal.

The bold part is technically incorrect, as Kam did received a bump in his 2013 base salary when he signed the new deal. His 2013 salary was not simply his original 2013 base + his signing bonus. Now i don't consider this "tearing up" his old deal, but i think it is a sticking point in Scientist's view.

 

[Fade]

http://www.king5.com/story/sports/n...-no-interest-trading-kam-chancellor/71869626/

What if Kam sits out the entire season??...

Then he'll still have 3 years left on his deal. He doesn't gain anything by sitting out the whole year. He'll be right back where he started, just a lot lighter in his wallet.

Okay, a few questions. . .

Let's say that Kam doesn't play at all this year. . . obviously, he's not going to be paid the $5 million or $7 million or whatever he would otherwise get. What happens to that money as far as the cap is concerned? Does it get moved ahead and added to Seattle's cap next year?

Now as far as Kam having three years remaining on his contract next year. . . does that mean since this year is guaranteed, and he doesn't play. . . than next year will be guaranteed for Kam if he decides to come back, since the Seahawks will still have him under contract for three years?? Let's say if that happens that the Seahawks decide that Kam is no longer quite worth the money. . .could they cut him without a cap hit?? Or would that be guaranteed money?

Base salary is saved for the year. (The game checks). and it gets really complicated after, Davis Hsu will have something on it, in about a week if this continues..

The key thing to focus on is the accrued season.

In order to accrue a season, a player must be on (or should have been on) full pay status for six or more regular season games.

 

[253hawk]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/rainnwilson/status/641314608389689344[/tweet]

Kam and/or his twitter account manager have been blocking all kinds of fans and media for calling him out on this.

 

[Fade]

The bold part is technically incorrect, as Kam did received a bump in his 2013 base salary when he signed the new deal. His 2013 salary was not simply his original 2013 base + his signing bonus. Now i don't consider this "tearing up" his old deal, but i think it is a sticking point in Scientist's view.

That isn't how the NFL, or people who follow the salary cap view it.

thus

Contract: 4 yr(s) / $28,002,008 Signing Bonus$5,000,000 Average Salary $7,000,50 Free Agent:2018 / UFA

 

[Exittium]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/rainnwilson/status/641314608389689344[/tweet]

Kam and/or his twitter account manager have been blocking all kinds of fans and media for calling him out on this.

Thats hardly calling him out.. Hell he blocked me for saying " what the hells up, when ya comin back" blocked lol i rarely usee my twitter... But yeah ivr moved on from kam

 

[Tech Worlds]

I just blocked him!

 

[Cartire]

It also should be pointed out that contracts (AGAIN) that contracts are one way. Everyone freaks out when a player does not honor a contract, but when they do what they did to Zach Miller, nobody bats an eye. I didn't hear "But he has a contract!!" from all the Seahawk fans that were aghast when the Seahawks forced Miller to take a pay reduction, because of performance #s he did not hit primarily because we forced him to stay in and block instead of catch the ball.

No they are not.

Contracts are contracts. Regardless of what each side gets or how even its distributed. A team cant force a player to restructure. They can say they will cut them and that might persuade the player. But they cant force them. And if they cut them, they still have to honor the contract. If the contract states that a player is owed so much money in a given year, regardless if hes on the team or not, they still have to pay that out. If it doesnt state that, THEN THE PLAYER ALREADY KNEW THIS.

Thats the point right there, the player knows the years that arent guaranteed. He already knows his incentives and bonuses, because its all, right there, in the contract. So when a player signs the contract, he knows full well what he will get no matter what. What he will get if hes still with the team. What bonuses he'll get. What incentives are. Hes knows all of this. The team doesnt get to choose to stop honoring the contract. The team gets to honor OPTIONS in the contract that both sides agreed too. And that may mean, the ability to cut a player and not have to pay a certain amount.

End.

 

[Fade]

I just blocked him!

i lol'd

 

[Fade]

It also should be pointed out that contracts (AGAIN) that contracts are one way. Everyone freaks out when a player does not honor a contract, but when they do what they did to Zach Miller, nobody bats an eye. I didn't hear "But he has a contract!!" from all the Seahawk fans that were aghast when the Seahawks forced Miller to take a pay reduction, because of performance #s he did not hit primarily because we forced him to stay in and block instead of catch the ball.

No they are not.

Contracts are contracts. Regardless of what each side gets or how even its distributed. A team cant force a player to restructure. They can say they will cut them and that might persuade the player. But they cant force them. And if they cut them, they still have to honor the contract. If the contract states that a player is owed so much money in a given year, regardless if hes on the team or not, they still have to pay that out. If it doesnt state that, THEN THE PLAYER ALREADY KNEW THIS.

Thats the point right there, the player knows the years that arent guaranteed. He already knows his incentives and bonuses, because its all, right there, in the contract. So when a player signs the contract, he knows full well what he will get no matter what. What he will get if hes still with the team. What bonuses he'll get. What incentives are. Hes knows all of this. The team doesnt get to choose to stop honoring the contract. The team gets to honor OPTIONS in the contract that both sides agreed too. And that may mean, the ability to cut a player and not have to pay a certain amount.

End.

BOOM! as in LEGION of...

 

[JAGHAWK]

https://twitter.com/BlockedbyKam


^LMAO^