Lynch expected to be traded

[Seahawkfan80]

Thought this trade upon un-retirement was going to happen after we heard that Lynch wanted to play again, but now money seems to be in the way and I doubt that Lynch will get what how want from the Raiders who won't pay him what he thinks is the right amount.

Much less certain this deal will happen before the draft or now at all.

Well hell brother....could have just been a marketing ploy. After all, the NFL is not about money is it??? :stirthepot:

 

[Sports Hernia]

Thought this trade upon un-retirement was going to happen after we heard that Lynch wanted to play again, but now money seems to be in the way and I doubt that Lynch will get what how want from the Raiders who won't pay him what he thinks is the right amount.

Much less certain this deal will happen before the draft or now at all.

I meant draft not TC .....you are correct, nice catch.

 

[LolaRox]

And this is why I cannot stand Florio, again if there isn't an issue he attempts to see if he can stir shit up or paint it black somehow when it comes to the Seahawks.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/04/14/why-wont-lynch-raiders-play-hardball-with-seahawks/

I agree, he's a poop stirrer. He never mentions the reason Lynch doesn't just want to 'play hardball' is because he doesn't want to be on the hook to payback $2.5M.

If Lynch unretires (without a trade in place) and shows up at the VMAC, the Seahawks will release him and they will be within their rights to ask for part of their money back. Therefore, Lynch wants this trade to work out as much as the Hawks do.

However, the hold-up seems to the money

https://twitter.com/VicTafur/status/855536111099068416

[tweet]https://twitter.com/VicTafur/status/855536111099068416[/tweet]

 

[jammerhawk]

However, there is absolutely no chance the Hawks will pay Lynch $9 mill. So he agrees to less with Oakland or the Hawks cut him and claw back the $2.5 mill SB money he'd have to pay back if he wants to play hardball. Seems to me $ 3 mill is about FMV for him on a trade if he doesn't have to pay back the $2.5 mill to the Hawks. Oakland gets it Marshawn doesn't yet.

 

[mikeak]

How do you guys propose we get signing bonus money back if we cut him? We could have asked for it because of him retiring not if we cut him....

 

[IrishNW]

what if lynch took league min to play with his boys and win another bowl? if it happens i called it

 

[hawknation2017]

How do you guys propose we get signing bonus money back if we cut him? We could have asked for it because of him retiring not if we cut him....

That's a good question. I believe the Seattle Times was reporting this as fact. Generally, teams are not entitled to recoup signing bonus when they release a player. So either there are explicit terms in the deal that make this clear or they are talking about recouping the portion of his signing bonus from last season if he decides to unretire on us without a trade in place.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

http://www.profootballhof.com/heroes-of-the-game/selection-process-faq/

To clear up any confusion on this issue:

Is a New Hall of Fame Member Enshrined as a Member of a Team?

Obviously, teams take great pride in the accomplishments of individuals who have been a part of their organization. Often individual teams and even the Hall of Fame will list enshrinees according to the team or teams on which they spent a significant period of time. An enshrinee, however, is not asked to “declare,” nor does the Hall of Fame “choose” a team under which a new member is enshrined. When elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, an individual is recognized for accomplishments as a player, coach, or contributor.

That's what I was referring to. Just as we don't consider guys like Jerry Rice to be "Seahawks" Hall of Fame players.

 

[Popeyejones]

How do you guys propose we get signing bonus money back if we cut him? We could have asked for it because of him retiring not if we cut him....

Yep. Signing bonus is guaranteed so the issue of signing bonus is really only something they could hold over his head (although to be totally honest they won't and they shouldn't) until he hypothetically applies for reinstatement. If he's reinstated the signing bonus money is his, and if they cut him the signing bonus money is his.

To go after his signing bonus is essentially to force his hand to apply for reinstatement, and to turn a non-acrimonious situation acrimonious without any end game that benefits the team.

 

[mikeak]

How do you guys propose we get signing bonus money back if we cut him? We could have asked for it because of him retiring not if we cut him....

Yep. Signing bonus is guaranteed so the issue of signing bonus is really only something they could hold over his head (although to be totally honest they won't and they shouldn't) until he hypothetically applies for reinstatement. If he's reinstated the signing bonus money is his, and if they cut him the signing bonus money is his.

To go after his signing bonus is essentially to force his hand to apply for reinstatement, and to turn a non-acrimonious situation acrimonious without any end game that benefits the team.

Right which is probably why they let him keep it originally. They had no intention of paying him $9million for one more year so let him retire keep the money or be forced to cut him

 

[Popeyejones]

Right which is probably why they let him keep it originally. They had no intention of paying him $9million for one more year so let him retire keep the money or be forced to cut him

Agreed.

And AFAIK it's pretty standard across the NFL to let older and established players keep their bonus money when they retire. For the rare younger guys who just decide they don't want to play football teams will ask for it back, but for guys who have put in service I've never heard of a team going after that money.

By way of example on both sides of this, two years ago when Borland retired after his rookie year and Davis retired at age 25 the 9ers got bonus money back from both of them, but didn't ask for it back from Pat Willis when he retired in the same off-season.

 

[semiahmoo]

Best of luck to Beast.

Hope he stays healthy and racks up some yards for his hometown.

 

[kidhawk]

According to Schneider in his pre-draft presser, Lynch and the Raiders are still in talks and we really don't have anything to do in regards to Lynch until they come to an agreement.

Not surprising at all, but confirms reports that the rumors they've come to a deal are just that...rumors.

 

[KitsapGuy]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ClaytonESPN/status/856604179455893504[/tweet]

 

[Sgt. Largent]

According to Schneider in his pre-draft presser, Lynch and the Raiders are still in talks and we really don't have anything to do in regards to Lynch until they come to an agreement.

Not surprising at all, but confirms reports that the rumors they've come to a deal are just that...rumors.

From what I've been reading and hearing, the ball's in Lynch's court. The Hawks and Raiders have agreed to their terms of releasing Lynch as long as there's a contract in place.

My guess is now the sticking point is Lynch isn't exactly thrilled about the lowball one year deal the Raiders told him he could sign for to come into camp and compete.

So if he thought the Raiders were going to come anywhere close to the 9-10M he was going to make here in 2017? He's delusional. You can't retire and come back expecting any team to throw a bunch of money at you......especially when you retired on a down injury riddled year.

 

[mikeak]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ClaytonESPN/status/856604179455893504[/tweet]

Why he would then go for less?

I don't know about others but AP was one of the best ever and while injury can be concerning he has proven to come back from them before. I rather have a guy that didn't leave the game the way he wanted (injury) and sign him than a guy that was done with the game and retired.

I know which one I think is more motivated to prove something....

 

[LolaRox]

How do you guys propose we get signing bonus money back if we cut him? We could have asked for it because of him retiring not if we cut him....

I believe they still have the 'right' to go after a portion of the signing bonus because he retired during his contract. I haven't seen any information that they give up that right if they cut him. He still was given money for time he didn't play.

Right which is probably why they let him keep it originally. They had no intention of paying him $9million for one more year so let him retire keep the money or be forced to cut him

Agreed.

And AFAIK it's pretty standard across the NFL to let older and established players keep their bonus money when they retire. For the rare younger guys who just decide they don't want to play football teams will ask for it back, but for guys who have put in service I've never heard of a team going after that money.

By way of example on both sides of this, two years ago when Borland retired after his rookie year and Davis retired at age 25 the 9ers got bonus money back from both of them, but didn't ask for it back from Pat Willis when he retired in the same off-season.

I agree that is pretty standard (although Calvin Johnson gave back some of his), but that is assuming the player stays retired.

I don't know if the Seahawks would/should go after the signing bonus, but it could be part of the equation.