The Hawks should trade for Martellus Bennett

[dontbelikethat]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AllbrightNFL/status/648983348329644032[/tweet]

 

[dontbelikethat]

So the Packers can afford it, but the Seahawks can't.

pre emptive rebuttal - The Packers pay more at O-Line, while the Hawks gave their O-Line money to Lynch.

The Seahawks can afford it.

I would think they're trying to roll over the 5m in unused cap into next year. Hits from the newly signed contracts from Wilson & Wagner are low this year, but it's goona increase heavily next year. There's already a lot of issues with cap/money with Lynch, Chancellor and Michael Bennett, adding another disgruntled player about his contract (Martellus held out as well) is just adding onto the headache.

Adding him might put you over the hump now, or it might not, but it can really mess things up for the future since that 5m is very valuable. Sign Martellus now and you probably lose someone good next year because of it, same thing probably goes for anybody worth trading a decent draft pick for.

 

[hawkfan68]

If Alshon Jeffery is on the market, then that's the target they should go and get. That's a #1 WR. Getting Alshon will immediately improve the passing game. Imagine Jeffery, Baldwin, and Lockett in 3 WR sets with Graham at TE.

 

[Basis4day]

If Alshon Jeffery is on the market, then that's the target they should go and get. That's a #1 WR. Getting Alshon will immediately improve the passing game. Imagine Jeffery, Baldwin, and Lockett in 3 WR sets with Graham at TE.

I imagine it would look pretty similar until the O-Line improves it's blocking.

Now assuming they did, his contract is up at the end of the year. Are you advocating a 1 year rental or are you actually planning have enough money for a contract extension?

 

[Fade]

So the Packers can afford it, but the Seahawks can't.

pre emptive rebuttal - The Packers pay more at O-Line, while the Hawks gave their O-Line money to Lynch.

The Seahawks can afford it.

I would think they're trying to roll over the 5m in unused cap into next year. Hits from the newly signed contracts from Wilson & Wagner are low this year, but it's goona increase heavily next year. There's already a lot of issues with cap/money with Lynch, Chancellor and Michael Bennett, adding another disgruntled player about his contract (Martellus held out as well) is just adding onto the headache.

Adding him might put you over the hump now, or it might not, but it can really mess things up for the future since that 5m is very valuable. Sign Martellus now and you probably lose someone good next year because of it, same thing probably goes for anybody worth trading a decent draft pick for.

Seattle will conservatively have $25 Million in cap space next off season (pending player extensions). A ton more can be created as well.

 

[mikeak]

^ that number ignores re-signing FAs

Bennet and Kam will not play out under their contracts

GB isn't spending the same dollars on other positions. You can't say GB spends X on WR and TE so we can do the same. That is not how the cap works

Finally we value defense more. We have more than needed being spent on the offense when you consider how we play. Go back and look at the Super Bowl winning year and look how money was spent on offense vs defense

 

[dontbelikethat]

So the Packers can afford it, but the Seahawks can't.

pre emptive rebuttal - The Packers pay more at O-Line, while the Hawks gave their O-Line money to Lynch.

The Seahawks can afford it.

I would think they're trying to roll over the 5m in unused cap into next year. Hits from the newly signed contracts from Wilson & Wagner are low this year, but it's goona increase heavily next year. There's already a lot of issues with cap/money with Lynch, Chancellor and Michael Bennett, adding another disgruntled player about his contract (Martellus held out as well) is just adding onto the headache.

Adding him might put you over the hump now, or it might not, but it can really mess things up for the future since that 5m is very valuable. Sign Martellus now and you probably lose someone good next year because of it, same thing probably goes for anybody worth trading a decent draft pick for.

Seattle will conservatively have $25 Million in cap space next off season (pending player extensions). A ton more can be created as well.

Like you said and mikeak said, it's before re-signing players and replacing players, and cmon man, you know that's a pretty weak argument. According to overthcap, the actual # is 22.8m.

22.8m is not much consider that 25 roster spots need to be addressed going into the off-season, literally like half the team is off the books. You have 23m to replace 25 guys (and I'm assuming that overthecap didn't include the 5m rollover yet), which includes Okung, Mebane, Irvin, Ryan, Lane, Kearse, Fred Jackson, Tjack, etc. 23m really doesn't sound like much when it comes to new contracts for those guys while also factoring rising cap cost for current guys like Wilson & Wagner. The total rising cap is also already factored in. There's a lot to think about than just the now.

Guys are falling off the books to create space, but you need someone to replace them and then you have make room for things like this:

Wilson & Wagner cap hits
2015: 7m + 3m respectively = 10m cap hit
2016: 18m + 6m cap hit respectively = 24m cap hit

It's a increase of 14m cap hit for next year, which is heavy, and why I think they'll roll over that 5m. I'm interested to know, how can a "ton more" cap space be created as well. Only way I see is if you gotta let go of some really good guys or renegotiate deals/sign extensions 2-3 years before contracts end (which the FO obviously doesn't like to do e.g. Kam Chancellor situation). And remember, Martellus is still unhappy about his contract and held out before this season as well. He will be 29 next season, and 30 when his current deal expires and signs a new one.

 

[massari]

^ that number ignores re-signing FAs

Bennet and Kam will not play out under their contracts

Kam and Bennett are stuck with what they've got. If they want more, I'd say trade them to get some high draft picks then sign some good free agents to take their place. I think the Hawks would be in a better place by trading them as opposed to giving them a raise.

 

[rideaducati]

Who would we cut?

I vote for Kearse.

Speculation has cap going up to near $160 million next season, so there is going to be plenty of money available.

 

[Hasselbeck]

If Alshon Jeffery is on the market, then that's the target they should go and get. That's a #1 WR. Getting Alshon will immediately improve the passing game. Imagine Jeffery, Baldwin, and Lockett in 3 WR sets with Graham at TE.

You'd give up a lot of draft capital for him.. then owe him a big extension before he hit FA in 2016.

I'd love Alshon, but that's a lot to fork over .. not to mention assimilating him in the offense, when we are struggling to even fit Graham in it, is a major reach.

Martellus makes a lot more sense. He would help immensely in the run/passing game with his blocking alone. Also think he'd be cheaper to acquire.

 

[TheRealDTM]

We can't really afford to spend that much on the TE position unless we are sure Lynch is gone next year.

 

[Hasselbeck]

We can't really afford to spend that much on the TE position unless we are sure Lynch is gone next year.

Martellus would clearly be a rental, barring a restructure.

Very strong likelihood the Bears will cut him next year and with a $6.3M cap hit in 2016... we would too.

 

[ringless]

Who would we cut?
Which teammate's salary would have to be reduced?
Do we have cap? If so it's probably pocket change.

Seattle has $5M in cap right now acquiring Martellus near mid-season would leave Seattle w/approx $2.5M in available space.

To make room for Martellus just cut any bottom feeder on the roster. Take your pick. I will go with B.J. Daniels.

Fade, I am just curious. I looked at over the cap and it shows Seattle with the least amount of Cap Space with $629,638 available. Is it inaccurate? 5 Million would seem like a lot right now.

Or is that assuming a restructure would have to be done?

I just don't see Seattle making that kind of trade right now but who knows.

The Seahawks currently have 34 players signed through next year. Which means they have 19 players to sign to get the full 53 man roster. Then any re-worked deals they might do i.e.: Kam

It's not a ton to work with but it's sufficient considering whats already signed through next year.

 

[peppersjap]

Yeah I'd be pleased to see it.
Happily give away our 1st next year for Bennett and a 3rd (which would be more like a low 2nd). It's not like we use our 1st round picks anyway.

You are nuts if you would give away a 1st and a 3rd for Martellus Bennett. When a team is going through a fire sale you try to low ball them! That would be more than we gave up for Jimmy Graham with way less return? I'm not sure how this could possibly make sense? We could end up with a decent blocking TE and give up a 1st and a 3rd that we might actually turn into real lineman the following year? As a still young team are we really that desperate? We have been to 2 straight Super Bowls and that trade would completely smell of desperation! I am completely shocked more people aren't laughing at this proposal!

 

[Fade]

^ that number ignores re-signing FAs

Bennet and Kam will not play out under their contracts

GB isn't spending the same dollars on other positions. You can't say GB spends X on WR and TE so we can do the same. That is not how the cap works

Finally we value defense more. We have more than needed being spent on the offense when you consider how we play. Go back and look at the Super Bowl winning year and look how money was spent on offense vs defense

If Kam or Bennett get extensions their cap numbers will go down next year creating more space, or at worst their cap number will stay the same.

 

[Fade]

Yeah I'd be pleased to see it.
Happily give away our 1st next year for Bennett and a 3rd (which would be more like a low 2nd). It's not like we use our 1st round picks anyway.

You are nuts if you would give away a 1st and a 3rd for Martellus Bennett. When a team is going through a fire sale you try to low ball them! That would be more than we gave up for Jimmy Graham with way less return? I'm not sure how this could possibly make sense? We could end up with a decent blocking TE and give up a 1st and a 3rd that we might actually turn into real lineman the following year? As a still young team are we really that desperate? We have been to 2 straight Super Bowls and that trade would completely smell of desperation! I am completely shocked more people aren't laughing at this proposal!

I agree. A 4th rounder is all that is required to find a good blocking TE w/some receiving skills.

 

[chris98251]

I think if you offer Bennett you have a better shot at Keeping the other one. He has to be available first though, but it is looking like the Bears would love to stock up on draft picks.

 

[Fade]

Who would we cut?
Which teammate's salary would have to be reduced?
Do we have cap? If so it's probably pocket change.

Seattle has $5M in cap right now acquiring Martellus near mid-season would leave Seattle w/approx $2.5M in available space.

To make room for Martellus just cut any bottom feeder on the roster. Take your pick. I will go with B.J. Daniels.

Fade, I am just curious. I looked at over the cap and it shows Seattle with the least amount of Cap Space with $629,638 available. Is it inaccurate? 5 Million would seem like a lot right now.
Or is that assuming a restructure would have to be done?
I just don't see Seattle making that kind of trade right now but who knows.
The Seahawks currently have 34 players signed through next year. Which means they have 19 players to sign to get the full 53 man roster. Then any re-worked deals they might do i.e.: Kam
It's not a ton to work with but it's sufficient considering whats already signed through next year.

I use overthecap.com and it showed $5M in space at the time I made the OP. Now I just checked it, and it changed so they updated it. (Kam being added to the roster, his Base Salary wasn't counting against the cap due to the holdout). So....yeah 629K in available space equals Martellus Bennett ain't happening.

In terms of projecting CAP going forward

the 34 number is deceiving because it doesn't account for ERFA's and RFA's.

ERFA's likely retained = 600K a pop

CB Marcus Burley
WR Chris Matthews
DE David King
TE Cooper Helfet
FS Steven Terrell

RFA's likely retained, but not tendered = 600K-700K

FB Derrick Coleman
WR Ricardo Lockette
LT Alvin Bailey
C Patrick Lewis

RFA's retained, and tendered = $1M-$2M+ (can be renegotiated after tender.)

DB Deshawn Shead

= 44 Players


Seattle has 13 upcoming UFA

Ranking them going forward 2016 -->

01 LB Bruce Irvin
02 DT Brandon Mebane
03 CB Jeremy Lane
04 LT Russell Okung
05 P Jon Ryan
------Below AVG Line---------------
06 DT Ahtyba Rubin
07 RG J.R. Sweezy
08 WR Jermaine Kearse
09 RB Fred Jackson (will be 35 years old)
10 QB Tarvaris Jackson
11 FB Will Tukuafu
12 LB Mike Morgan
13 DL Demarcus Dobbs

Let's say the Hawks keep 2 UFA's above the avg line

Retained 2 upcoming top 5 UFA's ($5M avg cap number in 2016 between the 2 which is being conservative if you follow the salary cap. Year 1 of a new contract is generally entails a really low cap number.)
DT Brandon Mebane
LT Russell Okung

Also under performing players, or players not worth their contracts can be reduced, cut, or traded.
CB Cary Williams is a likely candidate.

= 45 Players with a conservative estimate of $15M in cap space in 2016. Leaving space to make 1 more mid level move and the rest of the roster to be filled with cheap rookies and street FA's for the final 7 roster spots.

SEA will have $20M in off-season cap to go after new players, or retain more of their own to fill the the final 8 roster spots due to the cap being closer to $155M than $150M, and the signings of Mebane & Okung (Or which ever UFA's SEA chooses to sign) won't consist of them having $5M cap numbers in year 1 of their new deals (They will be in the $3-4M range in year 1.)

And that still doesn't even account for converting base salary to signing bonus for any big contract on the team to create even more space. (AZ just did this during the offseason with Carson Palmer as an example.)

 

[TheRealDTM]

We can't really afford to spend that much on the TE position unless we are sure Lynch is gone next year.

Martellus would clearly be a rental, barring a restructure.

Very strong likelihood the Bears will cut him next year and with a $6.3M cap hit in 2016... we would too.

That would make Michael happy. :roll: