Sherman option gm thought.

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:58 am
  • The one thing we have not seen from JS is making a huge trade ala the pats. Fleecing whoever is stupid enough to trade with them (I'm looking at you Ruskell). In so doing keeping a manageable cap and supplemental younger talent So if the Sherman deal does not get done could we possibly get a huge bounty from a trade. I think so.
    "When is the NFL going to start fining receivers for running routes across KAM’S MIDDLE?!?!"
    -bpup33
    User avatar
    Sprfunk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 705
    Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:57 pm


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:14 am
  • What huge trades have the Pats made where they've fleeced someone?

    Only one I can think of is Richard Seymour, who went on to be on of the best DTs in the league for another 5 years afterwards, so hardly the best comparison


    Oh yeah Deion Branch
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2322
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:20 am
  • Richard Seymour
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9142
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:21 am
  • Matt Cassel
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9142
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:22 am
  • Randy Moss if you consider what the Vikes got out of him.
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9142
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:12 am
  • Didn't Seattle give a first round pick for a certain wide receiver from the Pats?
    rideaducati
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1560
    Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:18 pm


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:20 am
  • Deion MF'ing Branch. Bueller?
    User avatar
    falcongoggles
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3107
    Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:46 pm
    Location: Florence, Italy


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:21 am
  • Mr. Glass
    60 percent of the time..........it works........every time
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2619
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:26 am
  • I'd say we fleeced the Bills for Marshawn and the Eagles for Clemons.
    User avatar
    FargoHawk
    *BRONZE SUPPORTER*
    *BRONZE SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 766
    Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:02 am


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:43 am
  • Wait, every single comment is focused on the wrong part of the OP.

    TRADE SHERMAN?
    Time of possession is the most meaningless statistic in football. -RolandDeschain
    User avatar
    Cartire
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2308
    Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:49 am


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:56 am
  • Sprfunk wrote:The one thing we have not seen from JS is making a huge trade ala the pats. Fleecing whoever is stupid enough to trade with them (I'm looking at you Ruskell). In so doing keeping a manageable cap and supplemental younger talent So if the Sherman deal does not get done could we possibly get a huge bounty from a trade. I think so.

    Ugh, the fantasy football mentality strikes again. You don't trade a player of Sherman's caliber period, end of story!
    42-13, 29-3, and 23-17 and a Lombardi trophy from THIS millennium.....deal with it niner trolls

    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!
    User avatar
    Sports Hernia
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 10734
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: Lombardi Land


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:59 am
  • Remember the Hershel Walker deal? That deal set up the cowpies for their SB runs.
    Image
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 22074
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 7:03 am
  • Thanks to everybody who answered my question with Seymour and Branch, I apparently never thought of them?

    Matt Cassel is a pretty decent shout, although the Chiefs also got good value out of that trade, considering they got Cassel and Vrabel for a 2nd round pick.

    I just don't get this idea that the Pats/Belichick are masters of getting more than fair value from the players they trade away.


    And picking up bargains like Moss/Welker/Blount etc (something we're also very good at) is the opposite of what we're talking about, which is getting rid of players for a premium that is more than their value.
    Trades like Herschel Walker, Rick Mirer, Carson Palmer (to the Raiders), RGIII (essentially), Roy Williams (to the Cowboys)... and Deion Branch are fleecings. But the last one is the only time I can think of the Pats getting the better of someone when trading a player away, and in reality we have to give Ruskell credit for that, not Belichick. I just don't see where they get their trading reputation...
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2322
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 7:14 am
  • Sports Hernia wrote:
    Sprfunk wrote:The one thing we have not seen from JS is making a huge trade ala the pats. Fleecing whoever is stupid enough to trade with them (I'm looking at you Ruskell). In so doing keeping a manageable cap and supplemental younger talent So if the Sherman deal does not get done could we possibly get a huge bounty from a trade. I think so.

    Ugh, the fantasy football mentality strikes again. You don't trade a player of Sherman's caliber period, end of story!


    I agree somewhat. I also say we get a deal done and Sherman is going nowhere (same for Thomas btw), but there are scenarios in which I would be ok with trading a player of his talent, and that is if the team attempts to extend the contract, and the player or his agent express a desire to leave the team over re-signing the deal. I know most would say just tag him, but if a player truly doesn't want to be here, it could very well affect the locker room and/or his play on the field. Under a circumstance such as this, I'd understand making the trade now and getting something in return.

    With that said, I want to be clear that I don't believe this to be an issue, just a way in which I would be on board with trading a player of his talents (think Galloway)
    Image
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12787
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 7:22 am
  • Largent80 wrote:Remember the Hershel Walker deal? That deal set up the cowpies for their SB runs.


    Back when RBs were still kings. And also, there's a reason the Hershel Walker trade is always brought up. It won't ever happen again. I think any GM anywhere would take a Hershel Walker trade for any one of there players minus their franchise QB.
    Time of possession is the most meaningless statistic in football. -RolandDeschain
    User avatar
    Cartire
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2308
    Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:49 am


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 7:23 am
  • Why would you compare Sherman to Galloway? One a model citizen and the reason another big time FA stayed for likely less than market value and the other a general malcontent.
    43-8...it's all about that action boss....
    next man up.
    User avatar
    MizzouHawkGal
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6325
    Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
    Location: Kansas City, MO


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:29 am
  • For all the Ruskell hate, he did "fleece" the Denver Broncos out of their 1st round pick (Earl Thomas), and get us Max Unger.

    Bill Belicheck is an idiot and has been wasting Tom Brady's career away with his egotistical trades. Richard Seymour would have been the difference between winning and losing a Superbowl.

    He traded away his 1st to Minnesota last year and IIRC, he could have had Cordarrelle Patterson, a player who probably would have gotten them to the Superbowl.
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 7847
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:46 am
  • If Sherman put the FO in the same position Revis did with the Jets, anything is possible. The question is who the potential trade partners would be? I didn't see the Bucs as a landing spot for Revis but it happened, so you never know until you sample the waters. You could count out the NFC West as potential trade partners. In this scenario, I probably try sending him to the two west coast AFCW teams. Would the Dolphins or Jets want to deal?

    Anyway, I doubt it gets to this point. But for conversation sake, I don't see a block-buster trade happening for Sherman.
    Image
    Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Chris Clemons 2010-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013
    Brandon Browner 2011-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
    Wilson will sign for $18M+ (3/4/2014)
    User avatar
    drdiags
    * The Doc *
    * The Doc *
     
    Posts: 9077
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
    Location: Covington, Washington


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:46 am
  • MizzouHawkGal wrote:Why would you compare Sherman to Galloway? One a model citizen and the reason another big time FA stayed for likely less than market value and the other a general malcontent.


    I didn't compare Sherman to Galloway. I said a situation such is the one we had with Galloway would be a reason why you'd trade a player of such immense talent. I also said quite emphatically that I don't see this happening with Sherman. It was just a reply to a post about not EVER trading a player of his talent.

    Like I said in my original post, there are reasons to trade a player away even one as good as Richard Sherman. I don't see it happening and am not advocating for it at all, just showing that there is precedent and reason for doing so in SOME cases
    Image
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12787
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:57 am
  • I think what the Pats have done well over mega type trades, is letting aging vets go at just the right time and then getting something for them. Richard Sherman is in his prime and no where near an aging vet. Trade him for a couple of 1sts in 2020.
    Go Hawks!
    oldhawkfan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 560
    Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:06 pm
    Location: Spokane


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:10 am
  • Seymour was a 30 year old with a long history of knee problems. It happens to work out for them but it was imho not a smart move for the Raiders. They mortgaged the future for a high priced player on a non competitive team. You think JS would come close to this trade?
    Deon Branch for a first? Fleese.
    The pats at one point had a track record of turning over priced (or soon to be overpriced) players into top picks.
    And for the record i do not want to trade Sherman, but I want to not be in cap hell. 13 mill is what he is worth but is he worth that to us vs other teams. What about 16 mil a year? Who knows what he wants?
    All I am saying is that JS has a layout for his payroll and if Sherman is asking unreasonable amouts of money I would rather get some serious draft capital then keep a player that could screw the teams cap for 5 years.
    I hope it works out and he is a seahawk for life.
    Last edited by Sprfunk on Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
    "When is the NFL going to start fining receivers for running routes across KAM’S MIDDLE?!?!"
    -bpup33
    User avatar
    Sprfunk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 705
    Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:57 pm


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:13 am
  • Cartire wrote:Wait, every single comment is focused on the wrong part of the OP.

    TRADE SHERMAN?


    You mean, the elephant in the room?
    "God bless America, and God bless the Seattle Seahawks" - Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    HoustonHawk82
    * NET Mechanic *
     
    Posts: 5724
    Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:51 am
    Location: is not important, when you're good.


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:17 am
  • All I am saying is that JS has a layout for his payroll and if Sherman is asking unreasonable amouts of money I would rather get some serious draft capital then keep a player that could screw the teams cap for 5 years.
    I hope it works out and he is a seahawk for life.
    Considering the current market and that the salary cap is going up and not by small amounts 12-13 million 72-78 million with 30-35 guaranteed may be a bargain in 2 years time. Besides I've seen no demands for something stupid like 16-17 million anywhere.
    43-8...it's all about that action boss....
    next man up.
    User avatar
    MizzouHawkGal
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6325
    Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
    Location: Kansas City, MO


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:33 am
  • Sherman is not going anywhere, but as soon as he rightly pointed out that he'll know how much the Seahawks value him when they, you know, show how much they value him with a contract offer, all sorts of crazy LET'S TRADE HIM stuff started popping up.

    Depressing.
    "He's a *****. It's not that he was a *****, he is a *****, and that's why he hasn't won anything."
    User avatar
    Smelly McUgly
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3457
    Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:30 pm
    Location: God's Country AKA Cascadia AKA The Pacific Northwest


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:33 am
  • ivotuk wrote:For all the Ruskell hate, he did "fleece" the Denver Broncos out of their 1st round pick (Earl Thomas), and get us Max Unger.


    As for Max Unger, even a blind squirrill (or Tim Ruskell) will occassionally find a nut (or a Max Unger). As for fleecing Denver, that was pure McDaniels who is generally around the NFL regarded as a fool who was over his head as GM (even more than Ruskell).
    Polaris
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1302
    Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:19 am


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:58 am
  • Sprfunk wrote:And for the record i do not want to trade Sherman, but I want to not be in cap hell.


    I think some people are fundamentally misunderstanding what "cap hell" actually means.

    "Cap hell" doesn't just mean, "Wow, we're paying that one guy a lot of money." It means, "Wow, we're paying that one guy a lot of money AND HE'S COMPLETELY NOT LIVING UP TO THAT DEAL."

    Let me ask you this: What are we saving that money for if not to give big contracts to guys who are among the best in the league at their positions? Are we hoping to save money so we can pursue someone in FA sometime later?

    Here's the truth: You don't stay frugal with your cap situation just to have room to sign a middling FA sometime down the road. You stay frugal with it precisely so you have the money to lock up the best CB in the league. You stay frugal so you can keep your franchise QB on a new deal. You stay frugal so you can reward the linchpin of your defense at FS. Sherman's upcoming deal is the exact reason why you let guys like Bryant go and why you don't offer top-dollar to Tate.

    There are several crucially important positions on a team, and you can easily determine which positions are seen as the most valuable by looking at the contracts associated. QB is obviously the top. A great pass rushing DE is up there. LT is way up there. And CB is up near the top as well. You don't let an elite CB go over whether or not it will impact your ability to re-sign your SLB or hold on to more depth at WR. You just don't.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7898
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:03 am
  • I agree with Volsunghawk completely but I have a couple additional thoughts:

    Cap Hell can also mean "I am losing a quarter of my allotted cap for players that play for other teams!" I believe that San Fran had that situation early in the 2000s (and explains their decline during that decade).

    In addition to why good GMs are frugal with cap space, I would add that the great GMs also can identify exactly which pieces of a team are irreplaceable and need the big money and which can be reliquished for "replacement level" players for less money.
    Polaris
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1302
    Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:19 am


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:06 am
  • Cap Hell occurs when you give mediocre players big money contracts to the point that you can't pay your stars and have to cut DeMarcus Ware.

    Cap Hell does not occur when you actually, you know, pay your stars that are elite players and project as elite players going forward.
    "He's a *****. It's not that he was a *****, he is a *****, and that's why he hasn't won anything."
    User avatar
    Smelly McUgly
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3457
    Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:30 pm
    Location: God's Country AKA Cascadia AKA The Pacific Northwest


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:14 am
  • Smelly McUgly wrote:Sherman is not going anywhere, but as soon as he rightly pointed out that he'll know how much the Seahawks value him when they, you know, show how much they value him with a contract offer, all sorts of crazy LET'S TRADE HIM stuff started popping up.

    Depressing.


    That's funny, who said we should trade him?
    "When is the NFL going to start fining receivers for running routes across KAM’S MIDDLE?!?!"
    -bpup33
    User avatar
    Sprfunk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 705
    Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:57 pm


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:00 am
  • Sprfunk wrote:
    Smelly McUgly wrote:Sherman is not going anywhere, but as soon as he rightly pointed out that he'll know how much the Seahawks value him when they, you know, show how much they value him with a contract offer, all sorts of crazy LET'S TRADE HIM stuff started popping up.

    Depressing.


    That's funny, who said we should trade him?



    ...op.... (I know it didn't say should, but it was the premises of the thread)
    Time of possession is the most meaningless statistic in football. -RolandDeschain
    User avatar
    Cartire
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2308
    Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:49 am


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:00 am
  • You have to have a cutoff point somewhere. It's the gift and curse of our team. Most of our team is young and most of them are paid well below their worth. We simply cannot afford to pay top dollar to everyone. Cap hell can result from giving stars too much money when you have other stars that need to be paid. We need to pay Sherman but if he gets paid to much it can seriously harm the team.
    If that is the case I would rather get a lot of compensation.
    I think we will hear the contract getting done any day now.
    "When is the NFL going to start fining receivers for running routes across KAM’S MIDDLE?!?!"
    -bpup33
    User avatar
    Sprfunk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 705
    Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:57 pm


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:11 am
  • Sprfunk wrote:You have to have a cutoff point somewhere. It's the gift and curse of our team. Most of our team is young and most of them are paid well below their worth. We simply cannot afford to pay top dollar to everyone. Cap hell can result from giving stars too much money when you have other stars that need to be paid. We need to pay Sherman but if he gets paid to much it can seriously harm the team.
    If that is the case I would rather get a lot of compensation.
    I think we will hear the contract getting done any day now.


    Okay, time to give details.

    Who are our stars that need to be paid?

    And which of them are more important than Sherman?
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7898
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:04 pm
  • Well RW of course. You can make the argument for ET As well. We already are paying PH.
    What I am getting at here is not that he is not one of the most valuable players for us, but that JS has a plan for what he can realistic pay for the best corner in the league and keep the rest of the team together. If Sherman wants more that the team feels they can pay JS will make that call, and i hope we get something for our team members that go. Do i wish we got compensation for Tate, sure. I hope we get compensation for a y guy who we can't afford to pay, whether that's Sherman or not.
    "When is the NFL going to start fining receivers for running routes across KAM’S MIDDLE?!?!"
    -bpup33
    User avatar
    Sprfunk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 705
    Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:57 pm


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:10 pm
  • Trading away an elite player like Sherman is exactly the kind of bonehead thing that Ruskell would do. Some of you would be no better than any number of reviled pro GMs the city of Seattle has had in the past. There's a long, storied history there of trading away elite players in their prime and then fading off into mediocrity. You guys just don't learn.
    User avatar
    DavidSeven
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3437
    Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:58 pm
  • Polaris wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:For all the Ruskell hate, he did "fleece" the Denver Broncos out of their 1st round pick (Earl Thomas), and get us Max Unger.


    As for Max Unger, even a blind squirrill (or Tim Ruskell) will occassionally find a nut (or a Max Unger). As for fleecing Denver, that was pure McDaniels who is generally around the NFL regarded as a fool who was over his head as GM (even more than Ruskell).


    Those rare nuts (Beavis laugh...) he found were pretty good though, Mebane, Red, Unger, the trade that landed ET. Without those guys, who's knows if we even get to the big show. :Dunno:
    As a musician and audio quality champion, Neil Young said in 2012, “Steve Jobs was a pioneer of digital music. But when he went home, he listened to vinyl.”
    User avatar
    twisted_steel2
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5238
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:41 am
    Location: Ballard


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 1:44 pm
  • Seven"]Trading away an elite player like Sherman is exactly the kind of bonehead thing that Ruskell would do. Some of you would be no better than any number of reviled pro GMs the city of Seattle has had in the past. There's a long, storied history there of trading away elite players in their prime and then fading off into mediocrity. You guys just don't learn.[/quote]

    I disagree, Ruskell would have paid Golden Tate top dollar. That would have been his big mistake. What Talent did he or Holmy ever trade (besides Galloway). I think your missing the point though. I am not saying we should trade him. If you check the op I said "if we can't sign him". Everyone has to understand that he has a number he is worth to this team and there is a number he has in mind. This signing may not happen if they are too far apart. We can't simply throw our whole plan out the window or risk loosing other stars if he asks for the moon. We don't want to pay too much money for one player and erode the team as a whole, ask Baltimore, but you also need your best players. Pay the man, but protect the team, its tough to keep all of these guys together and happy.
    If they can't get a deal we better get something for him.
    "When is the NFL going to start fining receivers for running routes across KAM’S MIDDLE?!?!"
    -bpup33
    User avatar
    Sprfunk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 705
    Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:57 pm


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 1:57 pm
  • Sprfunk wrote:I disagree, Ruskell would have paid Golden Tate top dollar. That would have been his big mistake. What Talent did he or Holmy ever trade (besides Galloway). I think your missing the point though. I am not saying we should trade him. If you check the op I said "if we can't sign him". Everyone has to understand that he has a number he is worth to this team and there is a number he has in mind. This signing may not happen if they are too far apart. We can't simply throw our whole plan out the window or risk loosing other stars if he asks for the moon. We don't want to pay too much money for one player and erode the team as a whole, ask Baltimore, but you also need your best players. Pay the man, but protect the team, its tough to keep all of these guys together and happy.
    If they can't get a deal we better get something for him.


    Ruskell put a number on Steve Hutchinson and lost him. Golden Tate isn't in the same ballpark as Richard Sherman and Steve Hutchinson, so I'm not sure how he is relevant to this conversation. Tate is an utterly replaceable 2nd tier receiver. Of course you wouldn't overpay him. Sherman is in his prime and the best player in the NFL at his position, just as Hutchinson was.

    Also, Sherman can only ask for an amount that someone else is willing to pay him. Earl Thomas will ask for the same. I've repeatedly asked why people seem to just assume Sherman will ask for some ridiculous amount that no one in their right mind would match. What makes him different than Earl Thomas or Russell Wilson in this regard? Because they're quiet? Please, bring logic to the table here. Either of those guys will have the exact same opportunity to hold this team hostage as Sherman, and there is utterly no reason to believe that they would be more or less likely to do so.

    Walter Jones used to be the quietest, most blue-collar guy on the team, and he held out damn near every season.
    User avatar
    DavidSeven
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3437
    Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:51 pm
  • DavidSeven wrote:
    Sprfunk wrote:I disagree, Ruskell would have paid Golden Tate top dollar. That would have been his big mistake. What Talent did he or Holmy ever trade (besides Galloway). I think your missing greatpoint though. I am not saying we should trade him. If you check the op I said "if we can't sign him". Everyone has to understand that he has a number he is worth to this team and there is a number he has in mind. This signing may not happen if they are too far apart. We can't simply throw our whole plan out the window or risk loosing other stars if he asks for the moon. We don't want to pay too much money for one player and erode the team as a whole, ask Baltimore, but you also need your best players. Pay the man, but protect the team, its tough to keep all of these guys together and happy.
    If they can't get a deal we better get something for him.


    Ruskell put a number on Steve Hutchinson and lost him. Golden Tate isn't in the same ballpark as Richard Sherman and Steve Hutchinson, so I'm not sure how he is relevant to this conversation. Tate is an utterly replaceable 2nd tier receiver. Of course you wouldn't overpay him. Sherman is in his prime and the best player in the NFL at his position, just as Hutchinson was.

    Also, Sherman can only ask for an amount that someone else is willing to pay him. Earl Thomas will ask for the same. I've repeatedly asked why people seem to just assume Sherman will ask for some ridiculous amount that no one in their right mind would match. What makes him different than Earl Thomas or Russell Wilson in this regard? Because they're quiet? Please, bring logic to the table here. Either of those guys will have the exact same opportunity to hold this team hostage as Sherman, and there is utterly no reason to believe that they would be more or less likely to do so.

    Walter Jones used to be the quietest, most blue-collar guy on the team, and he held out damn near every season.


    This should be simple, look Ruskells MO was to pay top dollar for middling production aka branch. Therefore my statement was that Ruskell would have made the mistake of paying tate a lot. I don't think the mistake would have been not paying sherman. Ruskell would have paid sherman imo. He payed Tru and lofa. He under values online that's for sure.
    Like I said he would have paid Tate. That's his type of mistake.
    Sherman needs to get paid, but if you think he can get paid 13 mill, et can get 13 mill rw can get 19 mill Harvin can get his, Doug Baldwin can get his, KJ, Okung, ect. your out of your mind. Look, we have so many great players who need to get paid.
    I never said Sherm will try to ge more and et will not. Of course he will, they all willl. We will loose great players. I just want compensation when we do. That' not ssomething I have seen yet.
    I don't get what's so hard about this "if we CANT sign him I hope we get good compensation".
    "When is the NFL going to start fining receivers for running routes across KAM’S MIDDLE?!?!"
    -bpup33
    User avatar
    Sprfunk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 705
    Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:57 pm


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:46 pm
  • If the Hawks signed him for 13+ mil per and immediately traded him for 3 firsts or
    2 firsts and a 2nd, I wouldn't bat an eye.

    Im not expecting any top corner to spend their entire career in one place.
    Too much cash is involved with top CBs.

    I love Sherm but the economics of rookie deals can keep teams on top
    for a long time.
    GET YOUR EAR PLUGS READY!!!
    DROPPIN' THE NOISE HAMMER AT THE SOUTH ALASKA INSANE ASYLUM
    User avatar
    TheHawkster
    * NET Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 1961
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:00 am
    Location: Puyallup


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:11 am
  • Sprfunk wrote:You have to have a cutoff point somewhere. It's the gift and curse of our team. Most of our team is young and most of them are paid well below their worth. We simply cannot afford to pay top dollar to everyone. Cap hell can result from giving stars too much money when you have other stars that need to be paid. We need to pay Sherman but if he gets paid to much it can seriously harm the team.
    If that is the case I would rather get a lot of compensation.
    I think we will hear the contract getting done any day now.

    Jim Moore, is that you?
    42-13, 29-3, and 23-17 and a Lombardi trophy from THIS millennium.....deal with it niner trolls

    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!
    User avatar
    Sports Hernia
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 10734
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: Lombardi Land


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:29 am
  • I don't get why people get all up in arms that we may have to pay Earl 10 million and Sherman 12 million (give or take). You pay your core and fill in with rookie contracts and the odd FA here and there. You don't spend 5-6 million on a slot receiver UNLESS you're a pass heavy team (New England, Denver, Detroit) and even then it's not optimal.
    43-8...it's all about that action boss....
    next man up.
    User avatar
    MizzouHawkGal
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6325
    Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
    Location: Kansas City, MO


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:22 pm
  • Sprfunk wrote:This should be simple, look Ruskells MO was to pay top dollar for middling production aka branch. Therefore my statement was that Ruskell would have made the mistake of paying tate a lot. I don't think the mistake would have been not paying sherman. Ruskell would have paid sherman imo. He payed Tru and lofa. He under values online that's for sure.
    Like I said he would have paid Tate. That's his type of mistake.

    Nah, Ruskell would have traded Golden Tate for a 5th round pick shortly after the doughnut episode.
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7350
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:43 pm
  • MizzouHawkGal wrote:I don't get why people get all up in arms that we may have to pay Earl 10 million and Sherman 12 million (give or take). You pay your core and fill in with rookie contracts and the odd FA here and there. You don't spend 5-6 million on a slot receiver UNLESS you're a pass heavy team (New England, Denver, Detroit) and even then it's not optimal.


    And remember that the core may change. If you have the standard of "ALWAYS COMPETE".

    :thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers:

    :thirishdrinkers:
    Cats will rule the world...just ask my cat.
    Gollum had a ring...Bilbo took it...Frodo had it...Gollum got it back.
    Gollum never had OUR ring.
    User avatar
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1838
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:53 pm
  • If your looking at trades, first you sign Sherman, you see how Simon Lane, and Maxwell play this year, if you think they can play to Shermans level you sign Maxwell for a lesser contract and work a trade for Sherman, you don't weaken your defense, you get picks, and you pick up a few million cap dollars. If Maxwell and Simon can't then you have Sherman on the team.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Used to be an Alumni till they pulled a USC on me...
    .Net official Clueless, Dumbass, Douche, Simpleton, CensoredTard , Idiot, member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 9687
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:10 pm
  • ivotuk wrote:For all the Ruskell hate, he did "fleece" the Denver Broncos out of their 1st round pick (Earl Thomas), and get us Max Unger.

    Bill Belicheck is an idiot and has been wasting Tom Brady's career away with his egotistical trades. Richard Seymour would have been the difference between winning and losing a Superbowl.

    He traded away his 1st to Minnesota last year and IIRC, he could have had Cordarrelle Patterson, a player who probably would have gotten them to the Superbowl.


    Belichick turned one year of Richard Seymour, who got $15 million a year from the Raiders and wasn't going to re-sign there, into Nate Solder, who's one of the better left tackles in football and playing on a rookie contract. You know who would make that move? John Schneider.

    Trading Sherman would be idiotic, by the way. If you can structure a longer deal so that the later years of the contract come when the cap has gone way up, he may end up taking a smaller percentage of the salary cap then he's worth at that point. That's good investing.
    User avatar
    MPLogick
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 21
    Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:38 pm


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:14 pm
  • kidhawk wrote:
    MizzouHawkGal wrote:Why would you compare Sherman to Galloway? One a model citizen and the reason another big time FA stayed for likely less than market value and the other a general malcontent.


    I didn't compare Sherman to Galloway. I said a situation such is the one we had with Galloway would be a reason why you'd trade a player of such immense talent. I also said quite emphatically that I don't see this happening with Sherman. It was just a reply to a post about not EVER trading a player of his talent.

    Like I said in my original post, there are reasons to trade a player away even one as good as Richard Sherman. I don't see it happening and am not advocating for it at all, just showing that there is precedent and reason for doing so in SOME cases


    Absolutely. Every player in the league (without a no-trade clause) is on the trading block. That includes RW and certainly Richard Sherman. They wouldn't, but what if Cleveland were to offer us Haden and Gordon for Sherm? Team first aka, no player is irreplaceable.
    Having your views challenged is a lot more healthy than simply jabbering on with people who think exactly the same way as you.
    User avatar
    HawkWow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5006
    Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
    Location: The 5-0


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:30 pm
  • Player for player trades are so rare as to be virtually nonexistent. The last one of note I remember was Champ Bailey. Draft picks make far more sense in the NFL model.
    43-8...it's all about that action boss....
    next man up.
    User avatar
    MizzouHawkGal
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6325
    Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
    Location: Kansas City, MO


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:57 pm
  • MizzouHawkGal wrote:Player for player trades are so rare as to be virtually nonexistent. The last one of note I remember was Champ Bailey. Draft picks make far more sense in the NFL model.


    Along with the NBA one on one match-ups, I'm bringing player for player trades back to the NFL. ; )

    OK..how about this one: Irsay's defense team claims Luck's neck beard drove Jim to a life of drugs, scandal and Amish porn. To save his sanity, and to stop the revocation of his drivers license, Jim throws himself at the mercy of the court and screams "if it weren't for bad Luck I'd have no Luck at all". Midway through his second binge of the day, he offers us Luck and 2 1st rd picks for Wilson. Do we take the deal?
    Having your views challenged is a lot more healthy than simply jabbering on with people who think exactly the same way as you.
    User avatar
    HawkWow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5006
    Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
    Location: The 5-0


Re: Sherman option gm thought.
Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:04 pm
  • Hmm...depends when the picks are. But honestly that would be tempting. Make it 3 because Wilson is too short then I would consider it.;)
    43-8...it's all about that action boss....
    next man up.
    User avatar
    MizzouHawkGal
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6325
    Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
    Location: Kansas City, MO




It is currently Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:47 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information