UPDATE: Seahawks traded for Percy Harvin

Status
Not open for further replies.

HawksFTW

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
0
kearly":22m0j9hv said:
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.

On the flip side of this Kip, I think you are way over estimating the COST of trading away these picks, and whatever contract Harvin will sign. "3 players from draft alone" is extremely misleading because we are getting arguably a better player out of that ONE pick than we would for all three. The 2-3 players from the financial side isn't a known factor either, because their is NO guarantee those players would stick around in FA or that the team would want those contracts to begin with. This is not a "blockbuster" trade in the way you are making it out to be, this is essentially us using that 1st round draft pick on Harvin, and sliding Minny a mid round pick and a 7th round pick for compensation. You cannot factor out what you believe to be unimportant, while over emphasizing the things you think are.


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.

I will take the names with a grain of salt because, KC is the only guy on that list that would be hard for me to swallow. Even then, Kam is replaceable. As for your last sentence, you are incorrect. It doesn't have to be comparable in TALENT just in CAP SPACE. You are trying to equate the two, which is extremely naive. As the Hawks have shown, this last year in particular, talent and the amount of money you spend don't have to be correlated. This front office has shown they know how to get talent, especially on the defensive side of the ball (where you have most of your cuts/losses at), cheaply and affectively. Draft well, and this will NOT be a problem, with the way contracts have gone with the CBA.

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).

Like most everything else you have said, this is conjecture that is essentially a scare tactic. What if, what if, what if. None of these things HAVE to be true, and even IF Seattle feels the need to jump back into the first round, they have a penchant for acquiring draft picks. Rounding off my point above, another way to deal with players that have large contracts looming, you can trade them before their contracts are up. In fact, that is how the most successful teams have done it. Keep the nucleus, trade the ones you can't/won't pay, and keep moving on.


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.

Reworking is never a given, but neither is anything else you are saying here. A lot of churning of the wheels for no reason, when most of these problems are at least a year or two away. I haven't seen anything from this front office that makes me think they will get caught with their pants down, and it is surprising to me to see someone of your insight into the team question that. These aren't the same guys that trade for CBJ.

So while some of us maybe naive for underestimating the impact, that cloth cuts both ways with the nervousness you are portraying here.
 

Uncle Si

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
20,596
Reaction score
3
nsport":orhbvb6c said:
I smell a thread merge.


did I miss a thread? I looked (not real hard tbf). The Harvin trade thread is 27 pages, but isnt specific. Figured this would be just for anyone against it.
 

nsport

Active member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
1,531
Reaction score
23
Well with a topic like this, I am certain it will get merged. The topic of whether we like it or not is a by product of the trade itself, which has 27 pages. Maybe a poll would be a better choice?
 

HUNTER

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I like some of the deal, the fact he will play for us is outstanding, HOWEVER we paid too damn much for him, considering what the 49ers did. I think we could have got him less the first round pick, ie- a couple middle round picks. Our GM finally got took
 

themunn

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
3,946
Reaction score
463
kearly":2k8a0prg said:
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.

That might cost us those players... the fact that we already have a solid team with few glaring holes likely means that instead of drafting players then cutting them, we can draft players and keep them. Also no way will Kam Chancellor cost 7m a year, there are only 7 safeties in the entire league earning more than 5m next year. Maybe Kam will want paid like a top 5 safety, but the likelihood is he'll "settle" for around 4m a year (average salary of the 10th highest paid safety in the league).
 

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
kearly":3oz7oevf said:
. 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. .

I think this math is flawed

1) You just got a player just earlier than the draft so to me that reduces the number of players to two
2) Very likely that the 7th rounder doesn't make the 53-man roster team so now you are looking at 2 or maybe 1 player only that you lost
3) Those 1 or 2 players are at a risk. They could be good they could be horrible. Here the risk is replaced with injury risk (like all players have) but you know the guy can play in this league

4) you would have paid those draft picks as well so you can't just count three guys salary on the team and not count the money spent on the first round and 4th rounder (I am assuming 7th rounder gets cut)

Sure there is a cost - there always is but it isn't 3 guys in the draft and 3 others on the team.
 

jhern87

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
HUNTER":1i5tqc7j said:
I like some of the deal, the fact he will play for us is outstanding, HOWEVER we paid too damn much for him, considering what the 49ers did. I think we could have got him less the first round pick, ie- a couple middle round picks. Our GM finally got took

The niners are getting a possession receiver at the end of his career, while we're getting one of the best receivers / playmakers in the game today.

I think a lot of fans still aren't aware of how big of an acquisition this was. With the time that RW can buy with his legs, no DB in the league will be able to stick Percy for that long. They're going to make so many plays.
 

blkhwk

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
492
Reaction score
0
Its doubtful there is a WR at pick 25 or whatever that is as ready as Harvin will be. He is only 24-5 years old. If you look at him as the first round pick, its a great move. The 7th rounder probably doesn't help the team this year or next. The Seahawks have set themselves up to "win now" . Its a good to great move (assuming PH doesn't turn into a malcontent that he was in Minny)
 

themunn

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
3,946
Reaction score
463
The value of giving away those draft picks is probably equivalent to moving up 4-5 spots in the first round (going by the fact that we got a 4th and 6th round pick for moving down from 12 to 15), which is very good value for Harvin if he's as good as you believe he is.

Those picks turned into Jeremy Lane and Jaye Howard. Now say what you want about that, but would anyone say we overpaid if we moved those 2 over to Minnesota with our 1st round pick?
 

Hawkfan77

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
0
HUNTER":38nw0xfd said:
I like some of the deal, the fact he will play for us is outstanding, HOWEVER we paid too damn much for him, considering what the 49ers did. I think we could have got him less the first round pick, ie- a couple middle round picks. Our GM finally got took
No. We weren't the only ones in on Harvin. We actually beat out the 9ers for his services, barely. This isn't a video game, stop acting like Schneider and Carroll didn't know the market.

You're wrong though, Harvin would not be a Hawk right now had we offered "a couple middle round picks"
 

HawksFTW

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
0
themunn":1ytvpttr said:
The value of giving away those draft picks is probably equivalent to moving up 4-5 spots in the first round (going by the fact that we got a 4th and 6th round pick for moving down from 12 to 15), which is very good value for Harvin if he's as good as you believe he is.

Yes, I think someone worked it out to be like moving up to the 22nd-23rd pick. If Harvin was in this draft, he would be LONG gone before then.
 

Evil_Shenanigans

New member
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
3,322
Reaction score
0
Juries still out for me. I re-watched the Vikings game from last season and he got hurt in the third quarter but he didn't really give me much to go off of before that.

That game may have contributed to the end of his season? I'll reserve final judgement until I see who we lose over this.
 

Starrman44

New member
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
814
Reaction score
0
Location
Canby, OR
I'm not worried about the 7th round pick because there are ways of acquiring those. Off the top of my head, I think we had like four 7th round picks anyway. It's almost like a preferred UDFA.

The mid-rounder is of more concern, obviously, but it seems like our front office tries to get a certain number of picks per draft. I am sure they will do something to add picks next year to replace it, if need be.

I don't see Harvin as injury prone. He had a problem last year, but he is young. I wouldn't think it will be a problem going forward. A player like Harvin may be of more value to this offense than anybody outside of Calvin Johnson and one or two other elite receivers. He fits in with what we like to do on offense.

I would love to see us get a great outside receiver, but you add what you can, when you can.

Overall, I am glad we pulled the trigger.
 

Thunderhawk

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
682
Reaction score
2
kearly":3vr5pimq said:
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.
 

CANHawk

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
12,041
Reaction score
0
Location
PoCompton, BC Canada
Yeah I'm Canadian (ie. the country that doesn't owe 4 trillion dollars to China). We're hella good with money yo.

Guys, I think it's time to transition the thinking away from the draft a little bit. At least get away from scouring the mid rounds for those oh so awesome diamonds in teh rough we've become so accustomed to finding. Pete himself said it's going to be very hard for rookies to crack the line-up going forward on account of the fact that this team has very few holes now. In light of that, what is the point of stockpiling 15 draft picks if only 1 or 2 of them are goign to stick? I said this early in the regime's tenure; as they build the team, it looks like the plan is to trade their valuable early picks back to stockpile mid round picks to fill out the roster with role players. As the roster gets filled out, the plan will likely flip to packaging up those mid round picks and moving them for early picks to move up and obtain playmakers.

At 24 y/o (remember, last year's 1st round pick Bruce Irvin was 24) trading what we traded for Harvin is damn near the equivalent of moving up a few spots in the first round to draft the best playmaker available. If there was three or four playmakers in the first round of the actual draft they had their eye on, there is zero guarantee they get their guy (and there is zero evidence that guy will produce in the NFL). By trading the picks for the player, they are guaranteed to get their man and that man is a very well known comodity. If they are so inclined, they still have plenty of ammo to move up into the early 2nd round to draft a dude like Kawaan Short.

If all we do this season is get Percey Harvin and Kawaan Short, I'd be happy as hell with this off season. If through the magic of John Schneider we also manage to bring in another candidate to play Will, I'll be even happier.

Now everyone go out and get some poutine!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top