hawkfan68":6wxcd90r said:
Sorry should have been more clear...I meant resigning OL guys. Skilled positions seem to be ok.
That doesn't pass muster. Seattle did resign two players (Unger and Giacomini) before. But otherwise, have been judicious about who they resign.
John won't resign mundane talent if he doesn't have to. Seattle has I think the biggest number of 6m+ contracts on it's roster in the league.
Ultimately, when you're in a position like Seattle was -- you have simply far too many worthy players to resign. You can't sign them all. So you choose the ones that provide the biggest value over a replacement.
Seattle resigned recently:
Wright
Wagner
Chancellor
Sherman
Thomas
Baldwin
Kearse
Lynch
Wilson
Lane
And allowed to walk:
Irvin
Sweezy
Okung
Gilliam
Carpenter
Malcom Smith
Byron Maxwell
Tate
Other than Irvin and Tate, I don't think any of those guys were worth resigning. Maxwell was -- but his market was not worth competing in.
Kearse and Lane probably look like mistakes (moreso Kearse than Lane). But those deals were also very modest. And one could have easily made the case that they needed to based on the state of the roster at the time their deals expired.
If Carpenter or Sweezy were even worth the deals they did sign -- I think Seattle would have chose to sign them. Those guys were empirically not worth both the money it would have required to keep them, nor the players we would have had to let go (Wright/Chancellor) to stay under the cap.
So I would reject the theory that John doesn't value or want to pay OL talent. Because I can't fault the organization even a little bit based on the choices they did make in letting them go. It's a bigger cap sin to pay second deals to bad players. The only reason those players even got the money they did get, is because there are many teams out there that don't have enough good players of their own worth resigning.