UPDATE: Seahawks traded for Percy Harvin

^ THIS

I have said it here but was told you don't draft to keep players from your opponents. If you follow soccer ask Milan of the 80's -90's what they think about that policy...........

Point being Harvin is a great fit for us but I am fine if the 4th rounder thrown in there was simply for the reason of keeping Harvin from the 49ers. Having him on their team with Crabtree and Kaepernick running would NOT have been a good matchup. Then they got that Gore running back guy..........they would have been extremely hard to defend and we were open across the middle a lot last year

Guess what now we got the RW, Harvin, Lynch guys on our team and I think our outsides with Tate and Rice are better than Manningham and Crabtree. I think Boldin only replaces Moss doesn't add much so I am very happy with the overall outcome

I am still scared to death though that 49ers put in a bid on Cruz..........

impacthawk":2v7725sm said:

I am confident in the John and Pete plan....and yes, they have one. Not just for this year, but 2-5 years down the road. They know when contracts are up. They know who they want to keep and who they will let walk. But this year, while our Window for a SuperBowl is now completely wide open, you win for this year right now. You just can't fully predict where you might be in 2014...but you can see this year, that the team goal should be nothing short of a SuperBowl appearance. I think we are a penetrating DT away from having a perfectly balanced team. And if I was a betting man....I would bet John and Pete get that solved very soon.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Teams have "cap gurus" for a reason. We'll front load some contracts and back load some others. We'll ask guys to restructure the terms of their contracts (not the $$) to bennefit the cap situation and yes... we'll eventually see some old favorites move on as they become cap casualties, but we've seen what these guys do in the draft, so replacements will come (and on the cheap too). They'll make the math work. I'm not in the least worried about their ability to keep the core of this team together. As long as Russell, Russell, Earl and Sherm are locked up for the remainder of their lives, we'll be alright.

Temporary break in the action for a little levity:

I wonder if Percy likes donuts?

CANHawk":1sw44k57 said:

Exactly. Teams have "cap gurus" for a reason. We'll front load some contracts and back load some others. We'll ask guys to restructure the terms of their contracts (not the $$) to bennefit the cap situation and yes... we'll eventually see some old favorites move on as they become cap casualties, but we've seen what these guys do in the draft, so replacements will come (and on the cheap too). They'll make the math work. I'm not in the least worried about their ability to keep the core of this team together. As long as Russell, Russell, Earl and Sherm are locked up for the remainder of their lives, we'll be alright.

Click to expand...

You are a smart man.

I think Harvin was frustrated. By what people who cover the team state he is a very bright guy that was very frustrated. He had no faith in his QB or OC ( remember the headaches improved after the OC did)

As far as the price. Add up the points for the picks and it comes across a pretty good deal. If you had moved up enough to get a player in the draft with the same potential they maybe great. However,they had not even played a game in the NFL.


Price? This is not the Mariners. They spend not to just compete , but to win. Sometimes you have to be bold and get the parts you need to win in the 3-5 year window.

What I find odd... think back to the SB team and SEA was in a lot of ways like the Steelers then. They were young and known for D. They had a good run for quite a while. The Seattle teams was older and we had one shot...like the 49ers.

nsport":2zf99hij said:

Temporary break in the action for a little levity:

I wonder if Percy likes donuts?

Click to expand...

Ha Ha...Tate could hook him up!

peachesenregalia":31v23gol said:

HawksFTW":31v23gol said:

You are a smart man, for a Canuck.

Click to expand...

He's Canadian, dude. You wanna re-think what you just said?

Click to expand...

FTFY

CANHawk":115ys48a said:

impacthawk":115ys48a said:

I am confident in the John and Pete plan....and yes, they have one. Not just for this year, but 2-5 years down the road. They know when contracts are up. They know who they want to keep and who they will let walk. But this year, while our Window for a SuperBowl is now completely wide open, you win for this year right now. You just can't fully predict where you might be in 2014...but you can see this year, that the team goal should be nothing short of a SuperBowl appearance. I think we are a penetrating DT away from having a perfectly balanced team. And if I was a betting man....I would bet John and Pete get that solved very soon.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Teams have "cap gurus" for a reason. We'll front load some contracts and back load some others. We'll ask guys to restructure the terms of their contracts (not the $$) to bennefit the cap situation and yes... we'll eventually see some old favorites move on as they become cap casualties, but we've seen what these guys do in the draft, so replacements will come (and on the cheap too). They'll make the math work. I'm not in the least worried about their ability to keep the core of this team together. As long as Russell, Russell, Earl and Sherm are locked up for the remainder of their lives, we'll be alright.

Click to expand...

Not the remainder of their careers, but their lives? I admire your dedication to the Hawks sir! :th2thumbs:

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.

impacthawk":9rv10wk7 said:

My position with Harvin is to just focus on the incoming talent and not the cost. I realize this is only 1/2 the equation.....but luckily for me, I have that luxury...I'm just a fan. When we are deep into the season and the benefits of Harvin's game are well established, the money won't matter. Everyone expected us to make a SB run this year and this piece is just one of those deals that is almost universally looked at as being a key piece that puts us over the top.

Click to expand...

I love this. It's exactly how I've been trying to wrap my head around it. From Pete's perspective (and by extension, the whole locker room vibe, because the two are still one and the same) you do what it takes to get the right team assembled. Every step of the way, every competition and look-see has been set up for that. Every current Seahawk has to know this move just made the team significantly better and harder to defend. Even a guy like Golden or Leon, who must wonder 'what does this mean for my role?', knows that adding Percy Harvin fits with the win forever/always compete ethos that is so deeply fundamental to the program.

I invite everyone who is worried at all about any aspect of this, to try to stave off the anxiety. Let the professional eggheads sort out the salaries and trust that they are not going to forget how to manage money just because we brought in a highly paid yardage machine! If you are one who must fret, save it for when/if it's warranted, ie, when we start losing games we should win (I seriously doubt this happens). Otherwise, this is supposed to be a HAPPY OCCASION! Let's not bicker and argue over who cost how much! With the weapons we have, our offense will move the ball over huge tracts of land!

kearly":9vam7gzn said:

I wonder how things might have been different if Seattle had been less aggressive here.

Click to expand...

From much of what I'm reading/hearing it sounds like if Seattle had been less aggressive here that Harvin would probably be a 49er right now instead of a Seahawk.

kearly":5h1dlid9 said:

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).

Click to expand...

Skipping out on the reworking or re-signing players part, because nobody except the players know what they are willing to accept to stay here and continue building this team up.

As far as drafting goes though, we had 10 picks this year and there was absolutely NO WAY they were all or even a high percentage (8 or more) going to make the team. If this is the case, and I believe it to be so, then trading picks is not hurting us at all. The seventh rounder especially as I believe we had several of those picks. If we need to get back in the first round, I would also have no trouble packaging a few later round picks, or perhaps Flynn with our 2nd round pick to move up, but at this time I'm not really sure we need to move up. We've actually had more success from our 2nd round and later picks than our first round picks.

Chapow":10jke6mm said:

kearly":10jke6mm said:

I wonder how things might have been different if Seattle had been less aggressive here.

Click to expand...

From much of what I'm reading/hearing it sounds like if Seattle had been less aggressive here that Harvin would probably be a 49er right now instead of a Seahawk.

Click to expand...

And we would ALL be saying the 49ers overpaid for an oft-injured malcontent 3rd receiver.

kearly":2n980bh7 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Agreed - but there is a difference between reworking contracts to make them more cap friendly (converting bonuses, for example) and pay cuts.

Most players probably won't go along with a pay cut, but having their deals reworked where they get a bonus instead of salary is a pretty good deal since they get it all at once.

Jazzhawk":xa15mmdo said:

22 pages? who the hell has the patience to wade thru 22 pages?? Jeez.

Click to expand...

Truth. I am not a fan of the moderator policy when it comes to stuff like this. IMO, it's better to have 5-10 Harvin topics that are 1-3 pages each than one unreadable monolith. Assuming that those topics each bring new information to the table, of course. Nothing wrong with locking/deleting redundant topics.

McGruff":u5j77ho4 said:

And we would ALL be saying the 49ers overpaid for an oft-injured malcontent 3rd receiver.

Click to expand...

So true.

Hell, if I had started a topic two days ago saying that we should trade a 1st, 3rd, 7th, and $12 million a year in cap space for Harvin I would guarantee you that 80% of the board would flame me for it. Guar-en-effen-teed.

Chapow":2sxqgzwv said:

kearly":2sxqgzwv said:

I wonder how things might have been different if Seattle had been less aggressive here.

Click to expand...

From much of what I'm reading/hearing it sounds like if Seattle had been less aggressive here that Harvin would probably be a 49er right now instead of a Seahawk.

Click to expand...

No doubt about it. Had we had to face Harvin twice a year in our weakest defensive spot - the slot - no doubt they would have a huge advantage in games against us.

kidhawk":1a35ho8f said:

As far as drafting goes though, we had 10 picks this year and there was absolutely NO WAY they were all or even a high percentage (8 or more) going to make the team. If this is the case, and I believe it to be so, then trading picks is not hurting us at all. The seventh rounder especially as I believe we had several of those picks. If we need to get back in the first round, I would also have no trouble packaging a few later round picks, or perhaps Flynn with our 2nd round pick to move up, but at this time I'm not really sure we need to move up. We've actually had more success from our 2nd round and later picks than our first round picks.

Click to expand...

Most of those 10 picks were in the late rounds though. You would expect the #25 and 3rd rounder next year to make the team. Your final statement is relatively true, but factually untrue. We've gotten excellent production out of the first round and this year's #25 was looking like the best pick we've had since 2010. Late first is loaded this year.

FlyingGreg":3ghyv09h said:

Agreed - but there is a difference between reworking contracts to make them more cap friendly (converting bonuses, for example) and pay cuts.

Most players probably won't go along with a pay cut, but having their deals reworked where they get a bonus instead of salary is a pretty good deal since they get it all at once.

Click to expand...

Well, if you are just moving money around that doesn't really help us. We aren't up tight against the cap right now- we just need to look for ways to streamline the roster so that we have money to spend for years to come. X amount of money is still X amount of money even if you change it's shape, especially in the new CBA which has a rolling cap structure.

As far as suggesting less money for more guaranteed money, I think that's a good idea, but a player will probably refuse it if he feels he's secure on the roster and is going to earn his base salary anyway.

Would be interested to hear some of the thoughts of those against (or moderately to severely concerned about) the Harvin deal?

Personally i applaud the move, but recognize the pitfalls. Living in MN and listening to Vikes fan justify the trade isnt exactly beneficial.

Thoughts?