How cutting Zach Miller & going TE in R1 could help Seattle

theENGLISHseahawk

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
9,977
Reaction score
0
Food for thought...

LINK: http://seahawksdraftblog.com/proposal-s ... one-target

You can make a pretty strong case to argue Zach Miller has been a terrific addition to this team — even without the big stats to back it up.

There is a ‘but’, however…

Miller is far from an elite player. He isn’t a big time difference maker.

His contract suggests he should be.

The most expensive player on Seattle’s 2013 roster was — you guessed it — Zach Miller.

And it wasn’t even close.

His $11m salary was $1.5m more expensive than #2 on the list — Russell Oking ($9.5m). Marshawn Lynch at #3 accounted for $2.5m LESS than Miller.

Rob Gronkowski’s cap hit in 2013 was $2.75m having recently signed an 8-year $55m mega-deal in New England. That steadily increase as you’d expect. Yet during the entire course of that contract, he doesn’t top Miller’s 2013 salary until 2019 ($11.25m cap hit) — the final year of the deal.

Even with Miller’s contract dropping to a $7m cap hit in 2014, he’ll still earn $1.6m more than Gronkowski next season.

As much as I appreciate the job he’s done in Seattle, his attitude and contribution to this young team — he’s simply earning far too much for a tight end who hasn’t topped 400 yards in three seasons.

In comparison, a tight end drafted in the #28-34 region could be expected to earn around $1.25m as a rookie and $1.5m as a second year player.

That’s a huge difference.

You can save $5m by cutting Miller ($7m cap hit, $2m in dead money). So you’re talking about a $4m overall saving by replacing him with one of the tight ends in this rookie class.

That’s money that could go towards keeping Golden Tate and/or Michael Bennett.

It really comes down to determining just how valuable you believe the 28-year-old is to the offense, compared to how effective a rookie can be as an immediate starter.
 

Missing_Clink

New member
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
1
Miller seems like a guy that would be willing to re-structure somehow. I agree that while he is a fantastic blocker and a very good all-around player, he is not worth that salary. Still, I hope they can keep him around by restructuring. One way or another, I think he is back with the team next year.
 

Jville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
13,187
Reaction score
1,545
Interesting article. However painting with 2013 contract numbers when talking about 2014 options is a disservice IMO. Referring to Miller's 7th highest highest cap number in 2014 is sufficient for your point. I think it useful to look to add another tight end regardless of the status of existing contracts. They will be looking to add. Tight end cuts along with others can wait until August.
 

EverydayImRusselin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
2,002
Reaction score
644
Even though I've been wanting OL early, I think I'd be fairly happy with this if a good WR fell to the end of the 2nd. Which WR would you be thinking of?
 

HawkWow

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
6,740
Reaction score
0
Location
The 5-0
IF ASJ is still on the board at 32, I will be livid if we pass on him. Love Money Miller, but he would become much more expendable with the addition of ASJ...then we have McCoy and Willson as well. We'd be fat for years at the position all combined making a fraction of Zach's money.

But the same people that see Miller as "not earning his money" are likely the same people that will say "ASJ had a down year". Both spent more time this year blocking than putting up numbers. Rather unfair to downgrade either for being team players. Additionally, I find it comical that some mocks have downgraded ASJ based on a reduction of catches, yards, TDs. If anything, ASJ should be upgraded...he still has that insane ability to make the circus catch at his ridiculous size, but now, like Miller, he can block, too.
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
39,519
Reaction score
1,518
Location
Roy Wa.
If we had TE depth that could do what he does you may have a point, but Miller can run, block and catch, the holes that have been so rotational in our line from injuries and learning curve has limited the ability to use Miller to the maximum of his abilities, Look at the Atlanta game last year as a real measureing stick of what he can bring.
 

drdiags

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
10,682
Reaction score
1
Location
Kent, Washington
Isn't McCoy a UFA after the season? He is part of that glob of 20+ players who have their contract ending in March.
 

Laloosh

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
8,688
Reaction score
0
Location
WA
drdiags":1ps5fwjl said:
Isn't McCoy a UFA after the season? He is part of that glob of 20+ players who have their contract ending in March.

Yes, he is.
 

HunnyBadger

New member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
540
Reaction score
0
I definitely wish for a big target pass catcher in round 1.

I'm really starting to think ASJ is the best pick for Seahawks if he by some miracle falls to us late in the first round. He is orthodox enough to block on the line, but nimble enough to stretch the field and even catch some screens. I really like Zach Miller, but his paycheck is going to be prohibitive. If we let Zach and Sidney go, we might have a prayer in re-signing Bennett and Tate, and be in a better position to sign ET and Sherman.

I would keep Willson as the Joker tight end.

Tate, Harvin, ASJ, and Willson would be a nightmare to cover....

I don't see us having a shot at getting a high-end WR in round 1 (Lee, Evans, Watkins)...maybe Coleman, but ASJ is a much more polished player and would take less time to bring up to speed it seems.

The latest draft at Draft Breakdowns has us taking Landry at #32...on this mock, ASJ would be available to us. The prior mocks on that site also have ASJ available to us.
http://draftbreakdown.com/new-year-new-mocks/
 

Mr.Hawkbrah

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
348
Reaction score
0
chris98251":g9c0r8f7 said:
If we had TE depth that could do what he does you may have a point, but Miller can run, block and catch, the holes that have been so rotational in our line from injuries and learning curve has limited the ability to use Miller to the maximum of his abilities, Look at the Atlanta game last year as a real measureing stick of what he can bring.

I like the idea in the op and I politely disagree with some of your statement. Miller is painful to watch run, id go as far as to say that out side of o line man and dts he's usually by far the slowest guy on the field. I cringe everytime he has the ball and has to take more than 2 steps to get to the end zone, cause you just know he's never going to make it.

I think we take advantage of his ability fairly well, he does an awesome job at what we ask. That's just my 2 cents and honest assessment, with that being said Miller isn't even my top 5 guys id "like" to see gone, I really like him but if te value at our draft spot is there plus a side bennie of savings I can see how this could make sense.
 
OP
OP
theENGLISHseahawk

theENGLISHseahawk

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
9,977
Reaction score
0
One thing to note on the possibility of restructuring his contract...

If Miller was willing to reduce his salary by 50% (a significant amount) -- he'd still be costing $2.5m more than a rookie drafted in the back end of round one. If he did take a 50% hit, the potential saving would still be $1.5m less than if you cut him outright and spent a high pick on his replacement.

The Seahawks might not actually have any interest in restructuring his deal. The main thinking behind this piece is that there's a massive saving to be made by cutting Miller, so that you can pass on that saving to help re-sign Michael Bennet, or Golden Tate -- or both. All the while, there's an opportunity to replace Miller with a player who might actually be up to the task (there are three rookie TE's who deserve an early grade).

It's addition by subtraction. If you can keep Bennett in the defense, help keep Tate on the offense and the only downside is a rookie starts instead of Miller -- isn't that worth considering?
 

SDHawk

New member
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
623
Reaction score
0
Cutting Sidney Rice and Clem would save us $20mm, enough to sign Golden Tate, Doug Baldwin, Michael Bennett.
 
OP
OP
theENGLISHseahawk

theENGLISHseahawk

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
9,977
Reaction score
0
SDHawk":2lu4rtnl said:
Cutting Sidney Rice and Clem would save us $20mm, enough to sign Golden Tate, Doug Baldwin, Michael Bennett.

Cutting Rice and Clemson actually only saves $14m -- they have a cap hit of $9m (give or take a few 100K) and both have $2m in dead money to blitz. So you're saving $7m on each player.

The Seahawks need to save more than $14m.

Cutting Miller as well would give you $19m to invest in Bennett and Tate. They might command $7m per each. The rest of the money has to go into the pot of cash being used to re-sign Thomas and Sherman -- two deals that will happen this off-season even if it means losing Bennett or Tate.
 

Laloosh

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
8,688
Reaction score
0
Location
WA
Hawk Strap":2vrm8b1e said:
What's Big Red's cap hit? I see him expendable.

Red is like 6.2 against the cap, think Mebane is 6.5.

edit: I was way off...

Mebane is set to cost $5.7M in cap with small dead money (only $400k) if cut. The net savings for cutting Mebane would be $5.3M in cap. Red Bryant is scheduled to cost $8.5M in cap, with $3M in dead money - for a net savings of $5.5M if cut. The net savings for Mebane and Red are similar - but with the way Mebane is playing Nose Tackle, I think you have to move on from Red Bryant.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/seahawks-anal ... y-cap-2014
 

IndyHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
7,956
Reaction score
1,594
I say let Miller go and really it will be for cap reasons/to resign the fa's..
 

drrew

New member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
1,090
Reaction score
0
theENGLISHseahawk":1wgf8ki9 said:
SDHawk":1wgf8ki9 said:
Cutting Sidney Rice and Clem would save us $20mm, enough to sign Golden Tate, Doug Baldwin, Michael Bennett.

Cutting Rice and Clemson actually only saves $14m -- they have a cap hit of $9m (give or take a few 100K) and both have $2m in dead money to blitz. So you're saving $7m on each player.

The Seahawks need to save more than $14m.

Cutting Miller as well would give you $19m to invest in Bennett and Tate. They might command $7m per each. The rest of the money has to go into the pot of cash being used to re-sign Thomas and Sherman -- two deals that will happen this off-season even if it means losing Bennett or Tate.

If Tate got a Cruz type contract (8yr $43m...which I think would be high) the cap number in year one was only $2.5m. I don't know that the Hawks would necessarily want to structure things like that, but there's ways to get both Tate and Bennett signed for relatively little hit on the cap year one. Cruz's cap jumps to $7.5m, then $8m, then $10m, so that's not ideal for Seattle knowing Wilson and Sherman deals are on the way, but it's an option.

What I think happens is that they cut Rice ($7.3m in cap savings) Clemons ($7.5m) Miller ($5m). Breno is not coming back at his current 4.75m cap, and Marshawns cap number drops by $1.5m next year. That's north of $25m.

Assuming Thomas, Sherman, and Wilson aren't looking to completely smash previous salary records, I think the Hawks are in pretty good cap shape.
 

Shane Falco

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
1,093
Reaction score
192
Location
Puyallup, WA
Could be the thing to do with Miller. I'm all in favor of only spending the big money on the true irreplaceable star players, which also means being against paying a superstar contract to Tate. The only thing I worry about is moving guys before having a proven replacement - that can be troublesome - both in losing them or overpaying them.
 
Top