Hawks Scheduled to Host Evan Mathis this Week

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Its odd that his visit to the Seahawks are open book but its been a complete mystery as to whom those other teams are. Saturday is the day after today, Mathis and his group is going to be pretty busy today if they have multiple teams fighting for his services... Yet not one person knows who those teams are exactly which means the Seahawks could realistically be the only team, right now.

Or the only team being used as leverage, publicly.

True, however, the Seahawks could be using Mathis as well if the two sides had already bren speaking and was priced out of Mathis range, for now. Mathis' agent uses the name drop to see if he can drive up thier price for other teams (if there are even other teams) while the Seahawks inquiry into Mathis sends two piece message to a few of its players.

1. To Britt and Gilliam to make the most of thier opportunity, that this may be thier only chance, and lets see how they handle the pressure knowing Mathis is a day away.

2. To Kam, that they're not budging, in fact they are willing to spend what little cap they have to shore up the biggest weakness if need be.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

None of those teams is a competitor. Mathis probably wants to get paid, but grabbing a ring with the 'Hawks as a one-year stop-gap with the high potential of getting a fat contract from a bottom-dweller the following year might entice him, especially at his age.

We thought that too with Jared Allen, but in the end it's what it's always about..............$$$$$.

My guess is Mathis has already received plenty of lesser offers from contenders, which should tell us he's holding out hope that he can get a big one year deal somewhere else.

 

[seahawk12thman]

Its odd that his visit to the Seahawks are open book but its been a complete mystery as to whom those other teams are. Saturday is the day after today, Mathis and his group is going to be pretty busy today if they have multiple teams fighting for his services... Yet not one person knows who those teams are exactly which means the Seahawks could realistically be the only team, right now.

Or the only team being used as leverage, publicly.

True, however, the Seahawks could be using Mathis as well if the two sides had already bren speaking and was priced out of Mathis range, for now. Mathis' agent uses the name drop to see if he can drive up thier price for other teams (if there are even other teams) while the Seahawks inquiry into Mathis sends two piece message to a few of its players.

1. To Britt and Gilliam to make the most of thier opportunity, that this may be thier only chance, and lets see how they handle the pressure knowing Mathis is a day away.

2. To Kam, that they're not budging, in fact they are willing to spend what little cap they have to shore up the biggest weakness if need be.

Very astute.... I feel the same way.

 

[MVP53]

He ain't taking a "prove-it" deal. He's got nothing to prove. If a one year deal for low money is all he can get, he's better off sitting out the season. A one year deal for decent money, sure. I think guard has become a big enough need where we have to think about cutting someone to get somebody.

I think the "prove it deal" has become one of the most overused terms on this board. Like you said, he doesn't need to "prove" anything. He's not coming off an injury. He has other teams interested.

If he signs here it's because either A) the Hawks cobbled together enough money to get him, or B) he's more interested in a ring than money.

 

[hawknation2015]

Anytime these rumors come out involving a Drew Rosenhaus client, I have trouble taking them too seriously. First, you had a leaked rumor that Bennett wanted to be traded to Atlanta, then he ends up showing up for training camp without any offer to adjust his contract. You also had the Greg Hardy rumor, which apparently had no merit. Now, Evan Mathis is expressing ambivalence about a potential Seahawks' visit, the night before Justin Britt is set to play his first game at left guard. I don't buy it.

 

[jblaze]

Hopefully he's earned his money and is more concerned with blocking for Beast Mode and chasing a ring.

For reference, here's the highlight tape of Mathis from the 14-15 season.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC5D0q2 ... e=youtu.be

He may be 34, but I think he's still elite. He has great movement and can get to the second level. He may be slowing down but he probably has a few years left.

 

[hawknation2015]

He ain't taking a "prove-it" deal. He's got nothing to prove. If a one year deal for low money is all he can get, he's better off sitting out the season. A one year deal for decent money, sure. I think guard has become a big enough need where we have to think about cutting someone to get somebody.

I think the "prove it deal" has become one of the most overused terms on this board. Like you said, he doesn't need to "prove" anything. He's not coming off an injury. He has other teams interested.

If he signs here it's because either A) the Hawks cobbled together enough money to get him, or B) he's more interested in a ring than money.

He's 33 years old and was on IR last year with a return designation, missing seven games. Chip Kelly told him not to show up. We're weeks away from the season, and Mathis is still not signed.

 

[MVP53]

They discussed the possibility of trading Kam on KJR this evening. Possible because of the 3-yr control ideal for a team with cap space to renegotiate. We trade Kam for a high pick, free the space to sign Mathis and have a very high pick from Kam.

I'm not saying I'd prefer this over just having Kam, but it is plausible.

"But it is plausible" is a little different than "if we signed him, that would mean Kam gets traded. I think this is a Seahawk initiative trying to gain leverage with Kam."

And just because the dolts on KJR were talking about it doesn't mean it's even in the realm of likely. You may as well say, "I heard a couple guys at a bar talking about the Hawks trading Kam."

 

[hawknation2015]

They discussed the possibility of trading Kam on KJR this evening. Possible because of the 3-yr control ideal for a team with cap space to renegotiate. We trade Kam for a high pick, free the space to sign Mathis and have a very high pick from Kam.

I'm not saying I'd prefer this over just having Kam, but it is plausible.

"But it is plausible" is a little different than "if we signed him, that would mean Kam gets traded. I think this is a Seahawk initiative trying to gain leverage with Kam."

And just because the dolts on KJR were talking about it doesn't mean it's even in the realm of likely. You may as well say, "I heard a couple guys at a bar talking about the Hawks trading Kam."

If it puts any pressure on Kam to come home, then maybe it's a good thing.

 

[Bobblehead]

So I heard on the Radio today, that Mathis is indeed coming to Seattle for a talk.

My question is, say we do sign him, what becomes of Britt?
I'd hate to think that we have given up on him but, I doubt he goes back to tackle, so where does he go?

 

[hawknation2015]

So I heard on the Radio today, that Mathis is indeed coming to Seattle for a talk.

My question is, say we do sign him, what becomes of Britt?
I'd hate to think that we have given up on him but, I doubt he goes back to tackle, so where does he go?

He would go back to tackle. But again, I don't see Mathis as a very likely signing. Even if we don't sign Mathis, there is a good chance Britt goes back to tackle.

 

[MVP53]

I'm no cap guy, so maybe I'm reading overthecap.com wrong. But, what we're looking for is guys who have a relatively high cap hit for their production, with relatively low dead money, right?

Just looking I see...

Jermaine Kearse: $2.365M cap vs $0 dead
Mike Morgan: $1M cap vs $150K dead
Christine Michael: $920K cap vs $417 dead
Greg Scruggs: $785K cap vs $100K dead
Anthony McCoy: $745K cap vs $75K dead

None of them are huge cap hits, but they're all pretty much fringe guys to even make the roster, aren't they? Maybe save for Kearse.

Again, I apologize if I'm totally misreading, or completely off my rocker. Analyzing the cap really isn't my thing.

 

[jblaze]

I'm no cap guy, so maybe I'm reading overthecap.com wrong. But, what we're looking for is guys who have a relatively high cap hit for their production, with relatively low dead money, right?

Just looking I see...

Jermaine Kearse: $2.365M cap vs $0 dead
Mike Morgan: $1M cap vs $150K dead
Christine Michael: $920K cap vs $417 dead
Greg Scruggs: $785K cap vs $100K dead
Anthony McCoy: $745K cap vs $75K dead

None of them are huge cap hits, but they're all pretty much fringe guys to even make the roster, aren't they? Maybe save for Kearse.

Again, I apologize if I'm totally misreading, or completely off my rocker. Analyzing the cap really isn't my thing.

It isn't a zero sum game, you can always renegotiate current contracts to kick the can down the road a bit so to speak.

That's what they would have to do here. Potentially extend Mebane for example for a year or two, turn his year 1 base salary into signing bonus to push into future years. Or perhaps this gives them the impetus to extend Kam and reduce this year's salary cap hit to make room for Mathis.

 

[MVP53]

I'm no cap guy, so maybe I'm reading overthecap.com wrong. But, what we're looking for is guys who have a relatively high cap hit for their production, with relatively low dead money, right?

Just looking I see...

Jermaine Kearse: $2.365M cap vs $0 dead
Mike Morgan: $1M cap vs $150K dead
Christine Michael: $920K cap vs $417 dead
Greg Scruggs: $785K cap vs $100K dead
Anthony McCoy: $745K cap vs $75K dead

None of them are huge cap hits, but they're all pretty much fringe guys to even make the roster, aren't they? Maybe save for Kearse.

Again, I apologize if I'm totally misreading, or completely off my rocker. Analyzing the cap really isn't my thing.

It isn't a zero sum game, you can always renegotiate current contracts to kick the can down the road a bit so to speak.

That's what they would have to do here. Potentially extend Mebane for example for a year or two, turn his year 1 base salary into signing bonus to push into future years. Or perhaps this gives them the impetus to extend Kam and reduce this year's salary cap hit to make room for Mathis.

I guess my question is, if they cut Christine Michael (which they may do anyway), do they save $503K? Or, does that money get absorbed by someone then making the 53 man roster. Sorry for the novice question.

 

[massari]

I'm no cap guy, so maybe I'm reading overthecap.com wrong. But, what we're looking for is guys who have a relatively high cap hit for their production, with relatively low dead money, right?

Just looking I see...

Jermaine Kearse: $2.365M cap vs $0 dead
Mike Morgan: $1M cap vs $150K dead
Christine Michael: $920K cap vs $417 dead
Greg Scruggs: $785K cap vs $100K dead
Anthony McCoy: $745K cap vs $75K dead

None of them are huge cap hits, but they're all pretty much fringe guys to even make the roster, aren't they? Maybe save for Kearse.

Again, I apologize if I'm totally misreading, or completely off my rocker. Analyzing the cap really isn't my thing.

It isn't a zero sum game, you can always renegotiate current contracts to kick the can down the road a bit so to speak.

That's what they would have to do here. Potentially extend Mebane for example for a year or two, turn his year 1 base salary into signing bonus to push into future years. Or perhaps this gives them the impetus to extend Kam and reduce this year's salary cap hit to make room for Mathis.

Or maybe Wilson can realize having a bad O-line will beat up his body for the next 4 years maybe hurting his chances at receiving another huge contract. So sacrificing some money to add Mathis would be worth the investment while maintaining a superbowl caliber team, which is how he got his fat contract to begin with.

 

[hawknation2015]

I'm no cap guy, so maybe I'm reading overthecap.com wrong. But, what we're looking for is guys who have a relatively high cap hit for their production, with relatively low dead money, right?

Just looking I see...

Jermaine Kearse: $2.365M cap vs $0 dead
Mike Morgan: $1M cap vs $150K dead
Christine Michael: $920K cap vs $417 dead
Greg Scruggs: $785K cap vs $100K dead
Anthony McCoy: $745K cap vs $75K dead

None of them are huge cap hits, but they're all pretty much fringe guys to even make the roster, aren't they? Maybe save for Kearse.

Again, I apologize if I'm totally misreading, or completely off my rocker. Analyzing the cap really isn't my thing.

It isn't a zero sum game, you can always renegotiate current contracts to kick the can down the road a bit so to speak.

That's what they would have to do here. Potentially extend Mebane for example for a year or two, turn his year 1 base salary into signing bonus to push into future years. Or perhaps this gives them the impetus to extend Kam and reduce this year's salary cap hit to make room for Mathis.

I guess my question is, if they cut Christine Michael (which they may do anyway), do they save $503K? Or, does that money get absorbed by someone then making the 53 man roster. Sorry for the novice question.

You would need someone taking his spot, with Rod Smith and Thomas Rawls making ~$440k. That's not much of a net savings. I don't think it's likely that Michael is released. Their is still potential there.

 

[Basis4day]

Or maybe Wilson can realize having a bad O-line will beat up his body for the next 4 years maybe hurting his chances at receiving another huge contract. So sacrificing some money to add Mathis would be worth the investment while maintaining a superbowl caliber team, which is how he got his fat contract to begin with.

Renegotiating down the road is one thing. But i don't think there is any player that is going to going to give back any amount of money in their first big contract before playing a single real game.

 

[jblaze]

I'm no cap guy, so maybe I'm reading overthecap.com wrong. But, what we're looking for is guys who have a relatively high cap hit for their production, with relatively low dead money, right?

Just looking I see...

Jermaine Kearse: $2.365M cap vs $0 dead
Mike Morgan: $1M cap vs $150K dead
Christine Michael: $920K cap vs $417 dead
Greg Scruggs: $785K cap vs $100K dead
Anthony McCoy: $745K cap vs $75K dead

None of them are huge cap hits, but they're all pretty much fringe guys to even make the roster, aren't they? Maybe save for Kearse.

Again, I apologize if I'm totally misreading, or completely off my rocker. Analyzing the cap really isn't my thing.

It isn't a zero sum game, you can always renegotiate current contracts to kick the can down the road a bit so to speak.

That's what they would have to do here. Potentially extend Mebane for example for a year or two, turn his year 1 base salary into signing bonus to push into future years. Or perhaps this gives them the impetus to extend Kam and reduce this year's salary cap hit to make room for Mathis.

I guess my question is, if they cut Christine Michael (which they may do anyway), do they save $503K? Or, does that money get absorbed by someone then making the 53 man roster. Sorry for the novice question.

It depends on the value of the contract of the person taking his place. Just cutting him without replacement would net us a savings of $711k this year but then you have to figure in his replacement so that takes a chunk out.

So for Michael, the decision on him won't really have any salary cap implications. His cut or keep will be solely on his ability to help this team this year and/or in the future.

 

[jblaze]

0% chance of RW renegotiating this soon after signing. That just doesn't happen.

This problem is present because our OLine hasn't gelled or developed like we had hoped. In my opinion, Cable and the FO"s ego of turning defensive linemen and UDFA's into serviceable OLinemen bit them this time.

I can see the backup OLine being UDFA but you need to draft starter caliber OLinemen in the top 3 rounds usually.

It's too much to ask our 3 OL rookies to be able to produce so quickly, it takes time. Bailey has really been a disappointment and Britt hasn't progressed in his pass pro much at all since being last at RT last year. That's a problem.

Spending the vast majority of your salary cap on defense will do this to you.

 

[MVP53]

I'm no cap guy, so maybe I'm reading overthecap.com wrong. But, what we're looking for is guys who have a relatively high cap hit for their production, with relatively low dead money, right?

Just looking I see...

Jermaine Kearse: $2.365M cap vs $0 dead
Mike Morgan: $1M cap vs $150K dead
Christine Michael: $920K cap vs $417 dead
Greg Scruggs: $785K cap vs $100K dead
Anthony McCoy: $745K cap vs $75K dead

None of them are huge cap hits, but they're all pretty much fringe guys to even make the roster, aren't they? Maybe save for Kearse.

Again, I apologize if I'm totally misreading, or completely off my rocker. Analyzing the cap really isn't my thing.

It isn't a zero sum game, you can always renegotiate current contracts to kick the can down the road a bit so to speak.

That's what they would have to do here. Potentially extend Mebane for example for a year or two, turn his year 1 base salary into signing bonus to push into future years. Or perhaps this gives them the impetus to extend Kam and reduce this year's salary cap hit to make room for Mathis.

I guess my question is, if they cut Christine Michael (which they may do anyway), do they save $503K? Or, does that money get absorbed by someone then making the 53 man roster. Sorry for the novice question.

It depends on the value of the contract of the person taking his place. Just cutting him without replacement would net us a savings of $711k this year but then you have to figure in his replacement so that takes a chunk out.

So for Michael, the decision on him won't really have any salary cap implications. His cut or keep will be solely on his ability to help this team this year and/or in the future.

Thanks for the clarification. I knew there had to be more to it than what I was reading. Otherwise, Michael probably would have been cut already.