According to nfl.com

The best way to get a trade is to claim you're gonna' keep the guy. I seriously doubt they will keep him if they get a decent offer. We shall see.

CALIHAWK1 wrote:According to nfl.com

Did you mean NFL Network or just forget to add the link?

EDIT: NVM, I found the link on the website

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000146057/article/matt-flynn-will-not-be-released-by-seattle-seahawks

NFL.com's Ian Rapoport reports the Seahawks will not cut Matt Flynn. In fact, a team source insists the "priority" is to retain Flynn as Russell Wilson insurance since the starter is one of the league's best bargains.

The front office will entertain offers for Flynn, however, because they know he has designs on his own starting job. Although some teams have concerns over tendinitis in Flynn's throwing arm, two sources close to the quarterback assure Rapoport that the elbow is "absolutely fine."

NFL.com says the Seahawks will not CUT Flynn [which makes total sense] but that they are open to offers for him. If they get a great offer they might trade him.

The title of this thread is totally misleading.

Misleading title is misleading.

I heard we traded him to Los Angeles.

I think this is what we were all already assuming (won't cut, will listen to offers), even when some reporter floated that unsubstantiated rumor that Seattle was expected to cut him.

Of course we aren't going to just cut him. Anyone that thought otherwise was having a brain fart.

Oh we'll cut him, but not until our new rookie beats him out for the #2 job during preseason.

Since there is no overpowering need to cut him, this makes sense. Not many trades happen during FA, teams are focused elsewhere. We'll see if the team gets trade offers as the draft nears, or after. Who knows, some team might have their starter go down in camp and be desperate enough to make an offer we can't refuse for Flynn. Especially if we find a capable backup in the draft, we could deal hiim this summer.

But release him? Doesn't make sense.

DavidSeven wrote:even when some reporter floated that unsubstantiated rumor that Seattle was expected to cut him.

You mean an opinion expressed by Peter King during an interview, one of the best NFL reporters in the biz?

No offense to Ian Rapoport, but he's trying to crack the national scene. He's the guy the Network brought in to replace Jason La Canfora (moved to CBS) who himself replaced Adam Schefter. So while everything he says could be perfectly legit, he could also being used to try and spark a non-existent market. Either way, whatever. Flynn's either our backup or he's not. I look forward to one day not really giving a crap who the backup is.

Sweet. 5 Flynn threads on the first page.

Sounds like coach speak for "he's gone to the first team to take his salary".

FlyingGreg wrote:Of course we aren't going to just cut him. Anyone that thought otherwise was having a brain fart.

Sanity speaks,,,,Thank You.

sutz wrote:Since there is no overpowering need to cut him, this makes sense. Not many trades happen during FA, teams are focused elsewhere. We'll see if the team gets trade offers as the draft nears, or after. Who knows, some team might have their starter go down in camp and be desperate enough to make an offer we can't refuse for Flynn. Especially if we find a capable backup in the draft, we could deal hiim this summer.

But release him? Doesn't make sense.

Well if you want to sign Richard Seymore and Revis you have to dump salary, everyone here says so. After all a 2nd string QB isn't worth ANYTHING to a team and can't help them if a starter goes down.

I'm pretty sure there's already a thread on Flynn's future for this thread hungry board.

We should swap with kc, They get Flynn, we get Smith and a 2nd rounder. Then we trade Smith to Jax for another 2nd.

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:

DavidSeven wrote:even when some reporter floated that unsubstantiated rumor that Seattle was expected to cut him.

You mean an opinion expressed by Peter King during an interview, one of the best NFL reporters in the biz?

No offense to Ian Rapoport, but he's trying to crack the national scene. He's the guy the Network brought in to replace Jason La Canfora (moved to CBS) who himself replaced Adam Schefter. So while everything he says could be perfectly legit, he could also being used to try and spark a non-existent market. Either way, whatever. Flynn's either our backup or he's not. I look forward to one day not really giving a crap who the backup is.

It never made sense to cut Flynn now. The savings simply don't justify the risk. Now for 2014 I see it and I get a trade. Cutting just doesn't pencil out.

Whooohhhh, that was a news flash...

sutz wrote:Since there is no overpowering need to cut him, this makes sense. Not many trades happen during FA, teams are focused elsewhere. We'll see if the team gets trade offers as the draft nears, or after.

Exactly what I see. I don't believe anything will happen with Flynn until them and very likely ON draft day. There will be teams looking at him as a potential starter if they don't see/get what they want. I don't expect the Seahawks to get the Smith trade out of it, but possibly packaged with another pick they can move up somewhere.

If they don't get the value, they are going to keep him, but I can see a team getting concerned and viewing Flynn as their starter.

Honestly, I do think Seattle intended to release Flynn at the start of free agency as a classy move to help him land somewhere (similar to Trufant last year). But it wouldn't surprise me if that plan changed somewhat after seeing what SF got for Smith, not to mention the flurry of activity even for crappy QBs like Matt Cassel. Seattle will play hard ball, and I could see them holding onto Flynn all the way into late August since it wouldn't cost them anything up to that point.

I could also see Flynn actually sticking around for just one more year- because when you work out the difference between his dead money and full salary it's only around $3.5 million or so, and this is a tough year to find a backup QB in the draft. I think Flynn definitely won't be here when the 2014 season starts, but I could see a small chance of him still being here during the 2013 season.

mikeak wrote:It never made sense to cut Flynn now. The savings simply don't justify the risk. Now for 2014 I see it and I get a trade. Cutting just doesn't pencil out.

Cutting him in 2014 only saves $750k more against the cap than cutting him in 2013.

I can see all possibilities. The 'risk' of not having Flynn as backup is overplayed IMO. Unless they want to make one of the highest paid players on the team a backup quarterback for the next two years, they'll consider cutting their losses. Not saying it'll definitely happen. But they can make a tangible cap + cash saving. We'll see what happens.

C'mon Cleveland...take the bait and make a trade.

aawolf wrote:C'mon Cleveland...take the bait and make a trade.

Norv Turner is there OC. Why on earth woth they trade for Flynn? Mallet, maybe. Flynn, no way.

CALIHAWK1 wrote:

aawolf wrote:C'mon Cleveland...take the bait and make a trade.

Norv Turner is there OC. Why on earth woth they trade for Flynn? Mallet, maybe. Flynn, no way.

I'm thinking that Cleveland is the best trade partner as the following teams have their own problems: Jets and Bills probably can't afford Flynn; Arizona will probably pass on another back-up QB experiment after Kolb sucked; Jacksonville will probably draft Geno; Cleveland just drafted a QB last year and they probably want competition at that spot.

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:

mikeak wrote:It never made sense to cut Flynn now. The savings simply don't justify the risk. Now for 2014 I see it and I get a trade. Cutting just doesn't pencil out.

Cutting him in 2014 only saves $750k more against the cap than cutting him in 2013.
.

Not correct - $2 million signing bonus / year gets used in 2013 and the guaranteed salary for 2013 gets spent. If you cut him now you have to pay someone else for 2013 and 2014 plus the $2 million signing bonus / year for 2014 and the guaranteed portion for 2014

Bad draft for qbs - so not many available and simply not enough savings when you consider the risk. Save $1-2 million and end up with someone new to learn the system. Not worth it. Save $7-8 million sure I get it

FlyingGreg wrote:Of course we aren't going to just cut him. Anyone that thought otherwise was having a brain fart.

That's what i said , and yes there are some on this board that bought into that EnglishHawk.

If we draft a rookie and he beats out Flynn for the backup job and we are unable to trade Flynn we will cut him.

kearly wrote:Honestly, I do think Seattle intended to release Flynn at the start of free agency as a classy move to help him land somewhere (similar to Trufant last year). But it wouldn't surprise me if that plan changed somewhat after seeing what SF got for Smith, not to mention the flurry of activity even for crappy QBs like Matt Cassel. Seattle will play hard ball, and I could see them holding onto Flynn all the way into late August since it wouldn't cost them anything up to that point.

I could also see Flynn actually sticking around for just one more year- because when you work out the difference between his dead money and full salary it's only around $3.5 million or so, and this is a tough year to find a backup QB in the draft. I think Flynn definitely won't be here when the 2014 season starts, but I could see a small chance of him still being here during the 2013 season.

Well you really covered your bases with that prediction.

aawolf wrote:

CALIHAWK1 wrote:

aawolf wrote:C'mon Cleveland...take the bait and make a trade.

Norv Turner is there OC. Why on earth woth they trade for Flynn? Mallet, maybe. Flynn, no way.

I'm thinking that Cleveland is the best trade partner as the following teams have their own problems: Jets and Bills probably can't afford Flynn; Arizona will probably pass on another back-up QB experiment after Kolb sucked; Jacksonville will probably draft Geno; Cleveland just drafted a QB last year and they probably want competition at that spot.

The best trade partner is Jacksonville because if any coach is willing to risk draft picks for Flynn, it's Bradley. He's the only coach that's seen Flynn on a daily basis over the past 12 months.

Either way I don't see Flynn being traded until after the draft. There's no way John and Pete trade Flynn without securing another QB in the draft.

Zebulon Dak wrote:If we draft a rookie and he beats out Flynn for the backup job and we are unable to trade Flynn we will cut him.

You think Flynn that bad? Or PC and JS are QB picking studs?

We are not hurting cap wise and being able to have a QB that supports and helps Wilson as a Vet is a bonus. Seen lots of take outs with Flynn and Wilson on sidelines looking at pictures during the games. Regardless of what English thinks that has value. English is also the same person that stated you have to draft top 10 to get a franchise QB, he was wrong then and wrong now. No offense English I just think you undervalue the position and what smart depth can do. If you remember Elway had Kubiak on the sidelines for years working that aspect of the game. Montana with Young, having a smart #2 thats a professional about his position is very valuable.

425HawkSpark wrote:

Zebulon Dak wrote:If we draft a rookie and he beats out Flynn for the backup job and we are unable to trade Flynn we will cut him.

You think Flynn that bad? Or PC and JS are QB picking studs?

Obviously QB picking studs. They got Whitehurst and Jackson didn't they?

Basis4day wrote:Sweet. 5 Flynn threads on the first page.

lets go for 6 !!

CLICK HERE

Why can't we restructure his contract to either make it more trade friendly or get it closer to backup money. I just keep seeing this happen on teams and don't hear a thing about Flynn even being able to. Why is this?

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:

DavidSeven wrote:even when some reporter floated that unsubstantiated rumor that Seattle was expected to cut him.

You mean an opinion expressed by Peter King during an interview, one of the best NFL reporters in the biz?

No offense to Ian Rapoport, but he's trying to crack the national scene. He's the guy the Network brought in to replace Jason La Canfora (moved to CBS) who himself replaced Adam Schefter. So while everything he says could be perfectly legit, he could also being used to try and spark a non-existent market. Either way, whatever. Flynn's either our backup or he's not. I look forward to one day not really giving a crap who the backup is.

And Peter King is always right right?

Just the other day PK said Flacco WOULD NOT sign a new deal before the franchise tag deadline.

garydrake425 wrote:Why can't we restructure his contract to either make it more trade friendly or get it closer to backup money. I just keep seeing this happen on teams and don't hear a thing about Flynn even being able to. Why is this?

Because both sides have to want to. At this moment what would Flynn's incentive be to give up money?

Maybe later if circumstances change.

His incentive would be to start for another team instead of being back up here. I keep hearing his contract isn't trade friendly. Well why not make it so both him and us win. He starts somewhere and we get whatever it is we get.

His contract is pretty trade friendly. Seahawks are eating $2 million / year in signing bonus, two years left is perfect not like a 4 year really bad deal and not to much money per year. IF (big if) he is a successful starter then not a bad deal at all...

chris98251 wrote:We are not hurting cap wise and being able to have a QB that supports and helps Wilson as a Vet is a bonus. Seen lots of take outs with Flynn and Wilson on sidelines looking at pictures during the games. Regardless of what English thinks that has value. English is also the same person that stated you have to draft top 10 to get a franchise QB, he was wrong then and wrong now. No offense English I just think you undervalue the position and what smart depth can do. If you remember Elway had Kubiak on the sidelines for years working that aspect of the game. Montana with Young, having a smart #2 thats a professional about his position is very valuable.

Hang on a minute, when did I say you have to draft a top-10 pick to get a franchise quarterback? I was extremely consistent with my opinion that it's the most likely way to get a franchise quarterback, and there's very little evidence to argue against that. The league has become so pass-centric that the top college QB's are easily identified and will nearly always be drafted early. And we've started to see mediocre QB's going earlier and earlier as teams 'chase the dream'. It's very hard to find a franchise quarterback these days without spending a first round pick -- and the higher you select the better.

I never ruled out the possibility of finding a gem later on, but hoping for such an outcome is like hoping you win the lottery. I'm over the moon that the Seahawks appear to have found this generation's Tom Brady albeit three rounds earlier. But let's be honest here, there's almost certainly not going to be another Russell Wilson for a long time. And next time a 5-10 quarterback with a similar skill set (if that ever happens) appears on the scene, there's every chance he'll be a top-10 pick because of Wilson's success.

Seeing Flynn and Wilson discussing stuff during a game means almost nothing IMO. Are we saying now that Wilson is going to continue needing such support in years two and three of his career? We're talking about one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL now. That's how good Wilson is, already. So while that was nice for Russell in year one if it really did have a tangible benefit, we don't need a $6-7m observer of photographs holding his hand. Backups generally discuss things with the QB's and share ideas. After all, they spend all week in meetings together.

By all means say I'm undervaluing the position. Personally, I just think I'm being realistic. I look at Peyton Manning in Indy, Brady in New England, Rodgers in Green Bay, Drew Brees in New Orleans. I try and remember who backed up those guys. Manning had Jim Sorgi. Brady had a host of nobody's drafted in the later rounds or UDFA's before they brought in Ryan Malett. Rodgers had Flynn (7th round pick) and I don't even know who his backup was this year.

None of those teams need or needed an expensive, high profile backup. They find guys in the later rounds of the draft and try to coach them up. There's no rampant panic about, "oh my god! What if our QB gets injured!". They get on with it. And that is what Seattle will start to do whenever Flynn leaves. They'll likely put mediocre, inexpensive veterans or young later round rookies in the backup position. C'est la vie.

They might keep Flynn for 2013, they might trade him, they might cut him. I think it'll be very difficult to trade him, even for later round consideration. But the other two scenarios are a lot more possible, in my opinion. They can eat the salary or move on. I suspect they'd love to be able to move on and not have the backup QB be one of the highest earners on the roster. We'll see what happens. I'm not ruling anything out. I don't think anyone should.