therealjohncarlson
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 10, 2009
- Messages
- 4,571
- Reaction score
- 412
hawknation2015":2v39cibj said:therealjohncarlson":2v39cibj said:hawknation2015":2v39cibj said:loafoftatupu":2v39cibj said:It would have been nice to have him, but even if we didn't have Harvin the Hawks were not going to be able to pay him what he was worth on the open market.
The Seahawks paid Harvin over $19 million. That is $6 more than Tate received in guaranteed money from Detroit. Without Harvin, they absolutely would have had the money to sign Tate, who was willing to take even less to stay with the Seahawks.
Signing Tate would not be worth losing Wilson in the slightest. Period.
The hypothetical posed was how we could have spent that $19 million if we had not given it to Harvin to begin with. That money is already gone, so it can't be used on Wilson. If we had never traded for Harvin, it could have easily been allocated for Tate, given that he received just $13 million in total guaranteed money from Detroit. His cap hit next season is $2 million less than the dead money we sill owe from the Harvin deal. So the $19 million could have gone partly to Tate and partly to other players, including Wilson.
With the Harvin deal already in place, I agree it was not worth it to sign Tate.
I was actually addressing the point that many reports claim Russell would not stay on the team if we re-signed Tate do to the whole "wife screwing" incident