Sherman option gm thought.

[Sprfunk]

Seymour was a 30 year old with a long history of knee problems. It happens to work out for them but it was imho not a smart move for the Raiders. They mortgaged the future for a high priced player on a non competitive team. You think JS would come close to this trade?
Deon Branch for a first? Fleese.
The pats at one point had a track record of turning over priced (or soon to be overpriced) players into top picks.
And for the record i do not want to trade Sherman, but I want to not be in cap hell. 13 mill is what he is worth but is he worth that to us vs other teams. What about 16 mil a year? Who knows what he wants?
All I am saying is that JS has a layout for his payroll and if Sherman is asking unreasonable amouts of money I would rather get some serious draft capital then keep a player that could screw the teams cap for 5 years.
I hope it works out and he is a seahawk for life.

 

[Anonymous]

Wait, every single comment is focused on the wrong part of the OP.

TRADE SHERMAN?

You mean, the elephant in the room?

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

All I am saying is that JS has a layout for his payroll and if Sherman is asking unreasonable amouts of money I would rather get some serious draft capital then keep a player that could screw the teams cap for 5 years.
I hope it works out and he is a seahawk for life.

Considering the current market and that the salary cap is going up and not by small amounts 12-13 million 72-78 million with 30-35 guaranteed may be a bargain in 2 years time. Besides I've seen no demands for something stupid like 16-17 million anywhere.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Sherman is not going anywhere, but as soon as he rightly pointed out that he'll know how much the Seahawks value him when they, you know, show how much they value him with a contract offer, all sorts of crazy LET'S TRADE HIM stuff started popping up.

Depressing.

 

[Polaris]

For all the Ruskell hate, he did "fleece" the Denver Broncos out of their 1st round pick (Earl Thomas), and get us Max Unger.

As for Max Unger, even a blind squirrill (or Tim Ruskell) will occassionally find a nut (or a Max Unger). As for fleecing Denver, that was pure McDaniels who is generally around the NFL regarded as a fool who was over his head as GM (even more than Ruskell).

 

[volsunghawk]

And for the record i do not want to trade Sherman, but I want to not be in cap hell.

I think some people are fundamentally misunderstanding what "cap hell" actually means.

"Cap hell" doesn't just mean, "Wow, we're paying that one guy a lot of money." It means, "Wow, we're paying that one guy a lot of money AND HE'S COMPLETELY NOT LIVING UP TO THAT DEAL."

Let me ask you this: What are we saving that money for if not to give big contracts to guys who are among the best in the league at their positions? Are we hoping to save money so we can pursue someone in FA sometime later?

Here's the truth: You don't stay frugal with your cap situation just to have room to sign a middling FA sometime down the road. You stay frugal with it precisely so you have the money to lock up the best CB in the league. You stay frugal so you can keep your franchise QB on a new deal. You stay frugal so you can reward the linchpin of your defense at FS. Sherman's upcoming deal is the exact reason why you let guys like Bryant go and why you don't offer top-dollar to Tate.

There are several crucially important positions on a team, and you can easily determine which positions are seen as the most valuable by looking at the contracts associated. QB is obviously the top. A great pass rushing DE is up there. LT is way up there. And CB is up near the top as well. You don't let an elite CB go over whether or not it will impact your ability to re-sign your SLB or hold on to more depth at WR. You just don't.

 

[Polaris]

I agree with Volsunghawk completely but I have a couple additional thoughts:

Cap Hell can also mean "I am losing a quarter of my allotted cap for players that play for other teams!" I believe that San Fran had that situation early in the 2000s (and explains their decline during that decade).

In addition to why good GMs are frugal with cap space, I would add that the great GMs also can identify exactly which pieces of a team are irreplaceable and need the big money and which can be reliquished for "replacement level" players for less money.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Cap Hell occurs when you give mediocre players big money contracts to the point that you can't pay your stars and have to cut DeMarcus Ware.

Cap Hell does not occur when you actually, you know, pay your stars that are elite players and project as elite players going forward.

 

[Sprfunk]

Sherman is not going anywhere, but as soon as he rightly pointed out that he'll know how much the Seahawks value him when they, you know, show how much they value him with a contract offer, all sorts of crazy LET'S TRADE HIM stuff started popping up.

Depressing.

That's funny, who said we should trade him?

 

[Cartire]

Sherman is not going anywhere, but as soon as he rightly pointed out that he'll know how much the Seahawks value him when they, you know, show how much they value him with a contract offer, all sorts of crazy LET'S TRADE HIM stuff started popping up.

Depressing.

That's funny, who said we should trade him?

...op.... (I know it didn't say should, but it was the premises of the thread)

 

[Sprfunk]

You have to have a cutoff point somewhere. It's the gift and curse of our team. Most of our team is young and most of them are paid well below their worth. We simply cannot afford to pay top dollar to everyone. Cap hell can result from giving stars too much money when you have other stars that need to be paid. We need to pay Sherman but if he gets paid to much it can seriously harm the team.
If that is the case I would rather get a lot of compensation.
I think we will hear the contract getting done any day now.

 

[volsunghawk]

You have to have a cutoff point somewhere. It's the gift and curse of our team. Most of our team is young and most of them are paid well below their worth. We simply cannot afford to pay top dollar to everyone. Cap hell can result from giving stars too much money when you have other stars that need to be paid. We need to pay Sherman but if he gets paid to much it can seriously harm the team.
If that is the case I would rather get a lot of compensation.
I think we will hear the contract getting done any day now.

Okay, time to give details.

Who are our stars that need to be paid?

And which of them are more important than Sherman?

 

[Sprfunk]

Well RW of course. You can make the argument for ET As well. We already are paying PH.
What I am getting at here is not that he is not one of the most valuable players for us, but that JS has a plan for what he can realistic pay for the best corner in the league and keep the rest of the team together. If Sherman wants more that the team feels they can pay JS will make that call, and i hope we get something for our team members that go. Do i wish we got compensation for Tate, sure. I hope we get compensation for a y guy who we can't afford to pay, whether that's Sherman or not.

 

[DavidSeven]

Trading away an elite player like Sherman is exactly the kind of bonehead thing that Ruskell would do. Some of you would be no better than any number of reviled pro GMs the city of Seattle has had in the past. There's a long, storied history there of trading away elite players in their prime and then fading off into mediocrity. You guys just don't learn.

 

[twisted_steel2]

For all the Ruskell hate, he did "fleece" the Denver Broncos out of their 1st round pick (Earl Thomas), and get us Max Unger.

As for Max Unger, even a blind squirrill (or Tim Ruskell) will occassionally find a nut (or a Max Unger). As for fleecing Denver, that was pure McDaniels who is generally around the NFL regarded as a fool who was over his head as GM (even more than Ruskell).

Those rare nuts (Beavis laugh...) he found were pretty good though, Mebane, Red, Unger, the trade that landed ET. Without those guys, who's knows if we even get to the big show. unno:

 

[Sprfunk]

Seven"]Trading away an elite player like Sherman is exactly the kind of bonehead thing that Ruskell would do. Some of you would be no better than any number of reviled pro GMs the city of Seattle has had in the past. There's a long, storied history there of trading away elite players in their prime and then fading off into mediocrity. You guys just don't learn.[/quote]

I disagree, Ruskell would have paid Golden Tate top dollar. That would have been his big mistake. What Talent did he or Holmy ever trade (besides Galloway). I think your missing the point though. I am not saying we should trade him. If you check the op I said "if we can't sign him". Everyone has to understand that he has a number he is worth to this team and there is a number he has in mind. This signing may not happen if they are too far apart. We can't simply throw our whole plan out the window or risk loosing other stars if he asks for the moon. We don't want to pay too much money for one player and erode the team as a whole, ask Baltimore, but you also need your best players. Pay the man, but protect the team, its tough to keep all of these guys together and happy.
If they can't get a deal we better get something for him.

 

[DavidSeven]

I disagree, Ruskell would have paid Golden Tate top dollar. That would have been his big mistake. What Talent did he or Holmy ever trade (besides Galloway). I think your missing the point though. I am not saying we should trade him. If you check the op I said "if we can't sign him". Everyone has to understand that he has a number he is worth to this team and there is a number he has in mind. This signing may not happen if they are too far apart. We can't simply throw our whole plan out the window or risk loosing other stars if he asks for the moon. We don't want to pay too much money for one player and erode the team as a whole, ask Baltimore, but you also need your best players. Pay the man, but protect the team, its tough to keep all of these guys together and happy.
If they can't get a deal we better get something for him.

Ruskell put a number on Steve Hutchinson and lost him. Golden Tate isn't in the same ballpark as Richard Sherman and Steve Hutchinson, so I'm not sure how he is relevant to this conversation. Tate is an utterly replaceable 2nd tier receiver. Of course you wouldn't overpay him. Sherman is in his prime and the best player in the NFL at his position, just as Hutchinson was.

Also, Sherman can only ask for an amount that someone else is willing to pay him. Earl Thomas will ask for the same. I've repeatedly asked why people seem to just assume Sherman will ask for some ridiculous amount that no one in their right mind would match. What makes him different than Earl Thomas or Russell Wilson in this regard? Because they're quiet? Please, bring logic to the table here. Either of those guys will have the exact same opportunity to hold this team hostage as Sherman, and there is utterly no reason to believe that they would be more or less likely to do so.

Walter Jones used to be the quietest, most blue-collar guy on the team, and he held out damn near every season.

 

[Sprfunk]

I disagree, Ruskell would have paid Golden Tate top dollar. That would have been his big mistake. What Talent did he or Holmy ever trade (besides Galloway). I think your missing greatpoint though. I am not saying we should trade him. If you check the op I said "if we can't sign him". Everyone has to understand that he has a number he is worth to this team and there is a number he has in mind. This signing may not happen if they are too far apart. We can't simply throw our whole plan out the window or risk loosing other stars if he asks for the moon. We don't want to pay too much money for one player and erode the team as a whole, ask Baltimore, but you also need your best players. Pay the man, but protect the team, its tough to keep all of these guys together and happy.
If they can't get a deal we better get something for him.

Ruskell put a number on Steve Hutchinson and lost him. Golden Tate isn't in the same ballpark as Richard Sherman and Steve Hutchinson, so I'm not sure how he is relevant to this conversation. Tate is an utterly replaceable 2nd tier receiver. Of course you wouldn't overpay him. Sherman is in his prime and the best player in the NFL at his position, just as Hutchinson was.

Also, Sherman can only ask for an amount that someone else is willing to pay him. Earl Thomas will ask for the same. I've repeatedly asked why people seem to just assume Sherman will ask for some ridiculous amount that no one in their right mind would match. What makes him different than Earl Thomas or Russell Wilson in this regard? Because they're quiet? Please, bring logic to the table here. Either of those guys will have the exact same opportunity to hold this team hostage as Sherman, and there is utterly no reason to believe that they would be more or less likely to do so.

Walter Jones used to be the quietest, most blue-collar guy on the team, and he held out damn near every season.

This should be simple, look Ruskells MO was to pay top dollar for middling production aka branch. Therefore my statement was that Ruskell would have made the mistake of paying tate a lot. I don't think the mistake would have been not paying sherman. Ruskell would have paid sherman imo. He payed Tru and lofa. He under values online that's for sure.
Like I said he would have paid Tate. That's his type of mistake.
Sherman needs to get paid, but if you think he can get paid 13 mill, et can get 13 mill rw can get 19 mill Harvin can get his, Doug Baldwin can get his, KJ, Okung, ect. your out of your mind. Look, we have so many great players who need to get paid.
I never said Sherm will try to ge more and et will not. Of course he will, they all willl. We will loose great players. I just want compensation when we do. That' not ssomething I have seen yet.
I don't get what's so hard about this "if we CANT sign him I hope we get good compensation".

 

[TheHawkster]

If the Hawks signed him for 13+ mil per and immediately traded him for 3 firsts or
2 firsts and a 2nd, I wouldn't bat an eye.

Im not expecting any top corner to spend their entire career in one place.
Too much cash is involved with top CBs.

I love Sherm but the economics of rookie deals can keep teams on top
for a long time.

 

[Sports Hernia]

You have to have a cutoff point somewhere. It's the gift and curse of our team. Most of our team is young and most of them are paid well below their worth. We simply cannot afford to pay top dollar to everyone. Cap hell can result from giving stars too much money when you have other stars that need to be paid. We need to pay Sherman but if he gets paid to much it can seriously harm the team.
If that is the case I would rather get a lot of compensation.
I think we will hear the contract getting done any day now.

Jim Moore, is that you?