Why is he? Nobody wanted him last year except us.



Speaking only from my own experience... coaches are happy to be very open to reporters if the relationship is good enough.

Or, assume you are Schneider. And, you think the Jets or Bills are interested, and you can RAPE them. Put this out there so they'd have to leap over teams further down in the waiver wire chain.

This may indeed end up being true. But, the timing is a total work. Most likely by Flynn's agent or JS.

_________________
@ryanadamdavis

I can say for sure he wouldn't have been cut, because he wasn't cut. There was a market for T-Jack, there's gotta be a market for Flynn


As for the argument being made that he makes too much and teams would have to take on his salary, no team has to pay him his contract amount. Deals are done all the team with restructured contracts. Nothing says he won't restructure and stay, or he won't be re-structured and leave.

Also, I wish people would stop with the myth of cap room. We have A LOT of cap room, and will likely create even more when we keep some of the rookies we draft at the expense of some of the vets. Cap room is not an issue. I'd be willing to bet, that keep Flynn or not, we have cap room to spare when the season starts.

I would surprised if he is cut.

_________________

I certainly hope so because it's going to roll over into the next year and that's when we're gonna need it!

_________________
Tanzania¹²

How many times are we allowed to roll it over? I was under the impression that either this was the last time (going to next season) or maybe it's next year? I just remember hearing somewhere that the rolling over of cap space was only temporary?

Also, isn't there a new rule in the CBA that kicks in soon where teams have to spend a higher percentage of the cap each year as a minimum?

There's no myth. The new CBA allows teams to push forward a specified amount of unused cap each year. The more cap room you have, the more you can push forward.

The reason Seattle has as much cap room this off-season as it does is because they specified quite a large amount to move forward. Saving as much cap room as possible every season is crucial now for teams with a young roster. If you want to be able to keep Okung, Thomas, Kam, Sherman etc... then you need to keep pushing forward as much as possible each year.

Spending $7.25m on a backup QB this year is a complete waste of money that could be put to better use... if not this year, then next year. It's not about having pure cap anymore. The new CBA is making it possible to reward teams who draft well. We need to take advantage. And our front office will be fully aware of that. A $3m saving should not be sniffed at.



We've checked and there was no specification that roll over ended this year. It appears to be possible until the deal runs out in 2021.

And yes you have to minimum spend - that won't be an issue when we try to re-sign Okung, Thomas, Sherman etc.

My thoughts exactly.
Some fools figguring on picking up a quality Quarterback on the cheap...It's almost comical...ALMOST.

Cole's report may end up being true, but it's just work at this point. No teams have talked to each other. No teams have really started devising draft strategies, understanding the QB's they want or the QB's other teams want. My guess is Cole floated this as a favor to an agent. Just a guess.

_________________
@ryanadamdavis

Meh, even if we can't find a trading partner cut him loose. The team needs literally every hundredth thousand dollar they can get for re-signing the majority core of this team over the next 3 years. Everyone wants a dynasty over going all in 1 or 2 years for the Super Bowl, well re-signing those core players can help with that and saving a couple million by cutting a backup quarterback who may never even see the field can go a long ways towards keeping the players here.

Jason Cole‏@JasonColeYahoo "While Seattle has told QB Matt Flynn they are willing to trade him, finding trade partner is problematic because several expect he'll be cut'

The key word here is problematic: it doesn't say he won't be traded. Obviously, the market is thin as few teams are in a position of need, but it is not a foregone conclusion that a team won't trade for Flynn, so that they can opt to draft a non-QB player with their top pick, and pick up a QB later in the draft.

Maybe Jason never spoke to reps with teams that have "some" interest, and even if he did, as pehawk said
you don't reduce your bargaining position by showing interest

Absolutely. This doesn't mean a trade won't happen, rather that it'll be difficult to generate any kind of value.

But I do think it should prepare us for Flynn being cut as a possibility. I suspect this place will go into meltdown if it happens, even though it's perhaps more likely than some anticipated.

I think this is exactly the point Cole is making. He's not saying he will be cut or he won't be traded. He's saying that if they can't find a suitor for a trade that they'll probably just cut him. And I believe that's probably a very accurate and reasonable statement. And I happen to agree that it is what we should do.

Would we love to get something for him? Of course. And I think we probably will but you never know.

_________________
Tanzania¹²

This is slight exaggeration to make your point. The Dolphins also wanted him.

And to say that just because only 2 teams wanted him last year that NO teams will want him this year makes no sense. There are at least 7 teams that have had a complete turnover at the GM spot and/or the HC spot that may be looking for a QB that were not last year.

Just because a situation was something last offseason does not mean it is the same this year. Your argument is very flawed.

_________________

Were the Dolphins that interested? I mean, they knew all about the guy through Philbin. That visit wreaked of a token gesture. And he agreed to sign for Seattle (may be mistaken here) before he even got back on the plane to the PNW.

I never made any comment on no teams wanting him this year. I merely commented that interest was extremely light last year.

And it's not that flawed really, is it? I mean, you could argue it's more flawed to believe things will be different 12 months on for a 28-year-old with his physical qualities? And two career starts? I could be wrong, but my point is far from flawed. When they guy was a free agent and cost no compensation but his salary, there was minimal interest apart from the team that eventually signed him (us). Adam Schefter - not a bad source for info - is predicting it'll be the same again this year. It's not a major stretch to side with him.

Reading through the CBA, yes you can push leftover cap forward, and there is a minimum spend amount. The amount is currently at 89% according to the CBA. Using last year's cap number of 120.6 million, that means a team could push forward, as much as 13.266 million if they maxed out. We are currently sitting at over $18 million, and that doesn't figure in the salaries of veterans that will likely be swapped out for rookies we draft this year, so that number should offset the slight increase in salary cap (if there is any) from last year to this year. This means that we currently have over $5 million in money we absolutely HAVE to spend, above and beyond what we are currently spending. So when you look at players being replaced and figure in their salary vs. free agent replacements, we must spend at a minimum, $5 million more this year. This still should not become an issue to where we have to cut Flynn because of his contract. Now, we may find a trade partner for him, and that scenario seems much more plausible, but given the math, I just still don't see cutting him as a necessity, unless it's something that Flynn has pushed for or perhaps something they may have agreed to if he played his role well this season.

What a half ass tweet. I don't buy it. We trade him or hold onto him.

Seattle guaranteed $4 million of Flynn's $5.25 million base salary for 2013. They are also on the hook to write off $4 million of the original $6 million singing bonus. That totals up to $8 million in "dead cap money" they would have to write off if they cut Flynn outright. I fail to see any benefit in that.

It's not a necessity in that we have to do it 'or else'. But if we want to make some free agent moves - modest or otherwise - then an extra injection of cash would be helpful. That and the rookie class gets you beyond the minimum spend. There's a chance -- like Clemons last year -- they try to extend the contract of (for example) a Kam Chancellor this off-season rather than next. Schneider's already referenced that.

The figures we're talking about here ($17-18m) are existing if we don't do anything in FA or re-sign our own players to new deals. Given that I think we'll do both (and maybe even go after a FA like Henry Melton or Randy Starks) the extra money would be useful in enabling us to push the maximum forward into next year to get other key prospective free agents re-signed to longer term deals.

Not a necessity to save money on Flynn, but there's a pretty clear incentive to not be paying a guy who hopefully won't ever see the field and yet earns one of the more expensive contracts on the roster.



If you were expecting a diatribe there's a 140 character limit...



$4m is guaranteed but they're paying him $7.25m in total. Cutting him saves $3.25m.

The timing is the stretch. No one knows a thing yet, period. No one's talked to anyone else.

And, the market for him last year is entirely irrelevant. Last year was the strongest QB class since 1983 (and the CBA incentivizes drafting one of those). Also, that Manning guy.

Okay, the below is funny.

_________________
@ryanadamdavis