kearly wrote:Not to sound harsh, but I think a few people are being naive with regards to value/money. Sure, Seattle can keep their essential players even with the Harvin investment. I made the same argument in my Revis thread. However, there is no escaping the fact that this acquisition will cost Seattle multiple players. 3 players from the draft alone, and 2-3 more from the financial side too. It's basically a "blockbuster" trade a bit like when the Knicks traded for Carmello or the M's traded for Erik Bedard. I think Harvin will work out better than those deals did, but I don't think we should just downplay the cost to justify liking the move.
In trying to put faces on this trade (take this with a grain of salt), we basically acquired Harvin in exchange for something that might resemble this: Datone Jones (1st round), Kenny Stills (7th round), D'Anthony Thomas (3rd round next year), Kam Chancellor (maybe $7 million a year), Jason Jones (maybe $5 million a year). It doesn't have to be those names, but it would be a comparable package of talent.
Additionally, the damage from this trade may possibly compound if Seattle feels they must work back into the first round this year for a pass rusher, just like how the Deon Butler trade kept coming back to bite us in the ass for years due to a draft domino effect (not having a 3rd in 2010 forced us to overpay for CW, the lack of a 3rd rounder the following year from the CW trade forced Seattle to trade down which contributed to a very weak start to that 2011 Seahawks draft).
Reworking contracts is never a given, btw. Look at how many players refused pay cuts in recent weeks and were let go as a result. If you approach Rice, Miller, or Bryant about reworking their deals, you better have a backup plan for their positions, because the odds are pretty good that they wouldn't accept a pay cut and you'll have to get rid of them.
I know you hear this a lot, Kip, but I am grateful that you're a member of this community. You bring balance to the force.
The reflexive "In Schneider I Trust" stuff echoes the "In Ruskell I Trust" mantra that dominated this board a few years ago. Pete and John are clearly better than Ruskell and have done some wonderful things, but they make their share of mistakes too. I understand fans wanting to be excited and Harvin is a nice player, but the Seahawks overpaid. More productive players with fewer red flags have been acquired for less. Teams overpay when they think they are a piece or two away from a championship, and perhaps the Seahawks are. But, if you follow sports at all, you have seen teams across all the major leagues try this impatient approach with usually deleterious results.
If Harvin stays healthy he will certainly be a dynamic player. Bevell is probably already adding plays to exploit his many gifts and, in conjunction with Wilson, we may see plays and formations never previously attempted in the NFL. But, there is also a significant probability that some of his injury issues resurface or that his attitude problems are irreparable. In which case the theoretical five players in Kearly's post will deserve some retroactive consideration. To me, 5 good players is better than 1 great player, unless that one player is so incredibly special and durable and reliable that his presence tilts the field. I can maybe think of couple dozen players that could do that and, at this point, Harvin isn't one of them.