Knighton

[CPHawk]

I haven't heard if he's visited Seattle yet or not, but Brock seems to think he will be a hawk in the next few days.

 

[HawkFan72]

David Hsu seems to think the Hawks could only get one of Wiz or Pot Roast.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DavisHsuSeattle/status/575873576269574144[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DavisHsuSeattle/status/575873888162197505[/tweet]

Wonder if that would really be the case.

 

[CPHawk]

Hope not, I'd like to get both. A guy like Knighton would only make Wags more dangerous keeping blockers of him.

 

[therealsm]

I'd take Wiz over Knighton

 

[Popeyejones]

David Hsu seems to think the Hawks could only get one of Wiz or Pot Roast.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DavisHsuSeattle/status/575873576269574144[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DavisHsuSeattle/status/575873888162197505[/tweet]

Wonder if that would really be the case.

I don't think he's really commenting either way on that supposition in his response; he's just replying back with what he'd prefer based on the premise of the question.

That said, yeah, even before the Graham trade I don't think anyone should have expected the Seahawks to be big players until the tail end of FA, and that's particularly true now with Grahams 9 mil per year added on too.

 

[Hawkfan77]

David Hsu seems to think the Hawks could only get one of Wiz or Pot Roast.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DavisHsuSeattle/status/575873576269574144[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DavisHsuSeattle/status/575873888162197505[/tweet]

Wonder if that would really be the case.

I don't think he's really commenting either way on that supposition in his response; he's just replying back with what he'd prefer based on the premise of the question.

That said, yeah, even before the Graham trade I don't think anyone should have expected the Seahawks to be big players until the tail end of FA, and that's particularly true now with Grahams 9 mil per year added on too.

Hawks didn't add 9 million to their cap with this trade...

 

[Basis4day]

David Hsu seems to think the Hawks could only get one of Wiz or Pot Roast.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DavisHsuSeattle/status/575873576269574144[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DavisHsuSeattle/status/575873888162197505[/tweet]

Wonder if that would really be the case.

I don't think he's really commenting either way on that supposition in his response; he's just replying back with what he'd prefer based on the premise of the question.

That said, yeah, even before the Graham trade I don't think anyone should have expected the Seahawks to be big players until the tail end of FA, and that's particularly true now with Grahams 9 mil per year added on too.

Hawks didn't add 9 million to their cap with this trade...

Correct. It's 8 right now. He is due a 5 million dollar roster bonus that they're rumored to convert to a signing bonus which will lower the cap hit too.

 

[ErikG803]

What did Brock say, exactly? Interesting...

 

[Hawkfan77]

I don't think he's really commenting either way on that supposition in his response; he's just replying back with what he'd prefer based on the premise of the question.

That said, yeah, even before the Graham trade I don't think anyone should have expected the Seahawks to be big players until the tail end of FA, and that's particularly true now with Grahams 9 mil per year added on too.

Hawks didn't add 9 million to their cap with this trade...

Correct. It's 8 right now. He is due a 5 million dollar roster bonus that they're rumored to convert to a signing bonus which will lower the cap hit too.

I'm talking about what it actually does to our cap room. We didn't take away 8 million from our total cap space. Schneider own words he called this move a "cash and savings" move. No first round pick anymore, no signing bonus money and no future guaranteed money owed to Graham.

We saved I think it was 3.5 million from unloaded Unger and also $3 million for getting rid of the 31st pick (Schneider mentioned the 3 million in total space for the 1st round pick)

 

[CPHawk]

What did Brock say, exactly? Interesting...

Just that he thinks Knighton will be a hawk in the next two weeks. I didn't hear what he said before that.

 

[Popeyejones]

and that's particularly true now with Grahams 9 mil per year added on too.

Hawks didn't add 9 million to their cap with this trade...

I didn't say they added 9 million to their cap with this trade...

In any case, I assume you're alluding to Max Unger, meaning on his side of the deal you could kind of think about him being traded as providing 3 million relief. That's wrong though if we're talking about signing a center (we are), because that is cost that is accrued to REPLACE what was lost -- every dollar over 3 million that Wis gets is added on to the cap from the opportunity cost of keeping Unger, plus the cap money dedicated to Graham.

Either way though I wasn' making an argument about that, and doing so doesn't really make sense yet IMO because we don't know what the new financial ramifications (if any, they could stay pat) of replacing Unger are.

Correct. It's 8 right now. He is due a 5 million dollar roster bonus that they're rumored to convert to a signing bonus which will lower the cap hit too.

Yeah, I said "9" because his cap hit over the three years is 8, 9, 10. It's averaging 9, and any of the FAs were talking about are being thought of with regards to their cap ramifications not for the first year, but over several years.

I know about the restructure rumor, but am not including that because:

1) It's a rumor, not a reality (at least yet)

and

2) IMO it doesn't make any financial sense for the Hawks to do that. Converting to a signing bonus doesn't mean that the Hawks get to give Graham less money, it means that they get to convert money that he would be owed this year into money he'll be owed next year and the year after that.

Why would they do that? Money for this year isn't a problem, it's money next year and the year after that (e.g. when Wilson, Wagner, and Wright on top of Sherman, Thomas, Kam, Bennett, are all actually making their real money rather than their first or second year lower figures) that might be a problem.

 

[Popeyejones]

EDIT: Messed up in my quoting. See below

 

[Basis4day]

and that's particularly true now with Grahams 9 mil per year added on too.

Hawks didn't add 9 million to their cap with this trade...

I didn't say they added 9 million to their cap with this trade...

In any case, I assume you're alluding to Max Unger, meaning on his side of the deal you could kind of think about him being traded as providing 3 million relief. That's wrong though if we're talking about signing a center (we are), because that is cost that is accrued to REPLACE what was lost -- every dollar over 3 million that Wis gets is added on to the cap from the opportunity cost of keeping Unger, plus the cap money dedicated to Graham.

Either way though I wasn' making an argument about that, and doing so doesn't really make sense yet IMO because we don't know what the new financial ramifications (if any, they could stay pat) of replacing Unger are.

Correct. It's 8 right now. He is due a 5 million dollar roster bonus that they're rumored to convert to a signing bonus which will lower the cap hit too.

Yeah, I said "9" because his cap hit over the three years is 8, 9, 10. It's averaging 9, and any of the FAs were talking about are being thought of with regards to their cap ramifications not for the first year, but over several years.

I know about the restructure rumor, but am not including that because:

1) It's a rumor, not a reality (at least yet)

and

2) IMO it doesn't make any financial sense for the Hawks to do that. Converting to a signing bonus doesn't mean that the Hawks get to give Graham less money, it means that they get to convert money that he would be owed this year into money he'll be owed next year and the year after that.

Why would they do that? Money for this year isn't a problem, it's money next year and the year after that (e.g. when Wilson, Wagner, and Wright on top of Sherman, Thomas, Kam, Bennett, are all actually making their real money rather than their first or second year lower figures) that might be a problem.

By converting the roster bonus to a signing bonus it has a 1.6 million cap charge for the next three years. That isn't that much and allows flexibility to other contracts this year. There is a good chance to salary cap will rise again over the life of this contract (no guarantee of course) but projections are strong. Bennett and Sherman have a higher cap this year and Thomas' and Kams' will seem more valuable assuming the cap increases. Also factor in the savings of not having a 1st rd pick over those years.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^^ Sorry, my posts got messed up. Deleted out and now replaced below. :th2thumbs:

I'm talking about what it actually does to our cap room. We didn't take away 8 million from our total cap space. Schneider own words he called this move a "cash and savings" move. No first round pick anymore, no signing bonus money and no future guaranteed money owed to Graham.

We saved I think it was 3.5 million from unloaded Unger and also $3 million for getting rid of the 31st pick (Schneider mentioned the 3 million in total space for the 1st round pick)

Ah, okay, see my post above for the Unger thing (which is what I assumed you were referring to.

As for the first round pick thing, IMO Schneider's either stupid (he isn't!) or playing pretty fast and loose with both his numbers and logic in that argument.

1) the 31st pick should AVERAGE around 1.75 million per year over the four years of his deal, meaning the first year would be considerably lower than 1.75, and well below even half of the 3 million he's citing.

2) Again, opportunity cost. The roster spot that would be taken up by the first round pick doesn't vanish because you traded the pick, it goes to somebody else. From a salary cap perspective, trading the 31st pick as a cost cutting strategy is one of the dumbest things imaginable.

Under the old CBA rookie contracts were MUCH closer to what they would be in a free market (while still not even close), whereas with the new CBA rookie's are MUCH more underpaid than they would be on an open market.

It's because the negotiations of the CBA suffered from a principle-agent problem: There was nobody there representing players who hadn't been drafted yet, and unsurprisingly, represented veteran players negotiated a deal that increased their OWN pay (by way of institution of the cap floor and by slashing rookie pay) at the expense of pay for draftees.

We all already know this though, and we just repeat it as generally accepted folk wisdom: the best way to manage the salary cap is to draft well.

As such, arguing that trading a draft pick (and particularly one outside of the top 10 -- even though the argument remains stupid these days if one is picking inside the top 10) is a salary saving move is incredibly stupid.

Given that (I'd guess) we all agree that JS isn't incredibly stupid (he's the opposite), we can conclude that in this instance he's most likely BSing.

 

[HawkFan72]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/NBCdianna/status/576080721506357248[/tweet]

 

[Popeyejones]

By converting the roster bonus to a signing bonus it has a 1.6 million cap charge for the next three years. That isn't that much and allows flexibility to other contracts this year.

Yeah, my point was that the Hawks don't need flexibility this year, they need flexibility in future years (like two years down the line when the real money for Wilson and Wagner kick in on top of everyone else' s real money).

There is a good chance to salary cap will rise again over the life of this contract (no guarantee of course) but projections are strong.

For sure, but there's no chance it's going to rise at or above the rate of the contracts we're talking about.

Bennett and Sherman have a higher cap this year

Higher cap this year than what? Last year? Well, yeah, Sherman's cap hit also goes from 12 million this year to 15 million next year and 14 the year after that. Bennett's over the next two years goes up by a smaller proportion, but goes up too.

Also factor in the savings of not having a 1st rd pick over those years.

See my post above. The logic of that argument is just batty, IMO.

 

[Popeyejones]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/NBCdianna/status/576080721506357248[/tweet]

Hard to tell what's true at this time of year. Could be true, could be someone trying to keep other teams away from him.

The same thing happens every year in the week before the draft.

 

[onanygivensunday]

Fwiw, last year Bradley Roby was selected by Denver at #31.

His 4-year contract is for just shy of $7M total with $5.6M fully guaranteed... and with only a $1.26M cap hit in his first year.

Back on topic... Pot Roast has got a LOT in his trunk.

 

[Popeyejones]

Fwiw, last year Bradley Roby was selected by Denver at #31.

His 4-year contract is for just shy of $7M total with $5.6M fully guaranteed... and with only a $1.26M cap hit in his first year. Back on topic... Pot Roast has got a LOT in his trunk.

Yeah, that was the average 1.75 per I was referencing above (7 divided by 4).

And for less than two million dollars a year the Broncos got a CB that --if last year is a good indicator-- may very well be better than every single CB on the FA market this year.

It's why arguing that trading away draft picks to save money on the salary cap is craaaaaaaazy.

 

[Hawks46]

Nobody is talking about what we are saving by cutting Miller. What's the actual cap saving numbers on that, anyone know?