Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Parallax's avatar

I so appreciate your analysis, Kenneth. I agree that teams have overwhelming leverage. That said, not anywhere close to the leverage they once had, when they owned players like indentured servants. In other words, Metcalf will get an insane amount of money and soon. The Seahawks can't avoid it because those same rules which favor teams overall require a tagged player to be paid well. Given the negatives for the team to tag Metcalf, they'll want to avoid it. So, in other words, we can expect to see DK get a contract of roughly 25 million bucks a year for four years with a good chunk of it guaranteed. Not a lot of drama but that won't stop all the outlets from writing about it as if there were.

I think there is a remote chance Seattle trades DK. It would have to account for the fact that the receiving team is going to be better as a result of his addition. So I'm thinking maybe for a couple of first round picks. Is anyone desperate enough to trade two firsts for DK?

From our team's point of view, I wouldn't advocate that trade. I'd rather sign DK. But if it's clear he's unhappy or wants out, I might change my mind. Every move is a calculated risk. Who knows when or if we find another great receiver. At the same time, an unhappy player in the locker can be a major drag, particularly on a team trying to rebuild.

Expand full comment
Paul G's avatar

Every now and then there is talk about some player signing a “team-friendly contract.” In the NFL, *every* contract is team-friendly.

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts