Lynch

[TheDman875]

I'd rather ensure we resign Sweezy... I think he's the best on our OL... I can see us using the franchise tag on either Irvin, Sweezy or Okung... Maybe transitional on one of them instead... Who knows... It will be interesting to see how the FO handles those 3...

I'm ok with letting Okung walk. Maybe it's just me, but I felt the O-line played extrmely better as a unit when he was not on the field. Also, those lineman are only 24 years old (one 25 I think) and approaching their prime. I'd be happy with adding depth this offseason early in the draft or adding a solid FA with a cap friendly price tag.

 

[Judge Fudge]

I don't know how much this will effect the cap.

Per the score

Seahawks won't ask him for the 5 million bouns back

 

[Anointed One]

I don't know how much this will effect the cap.

Per the score

Seahawks won't ask him for the 5 million bouns back

John Clayton spoke of this a few weeks ago... He felt this was part of their negotiations last year when they extended his contract...

 

[Uhsplit]

I'd rather ensure we resign Sweezy... I think he's the best on our OL... I can see us using the franchise tag on either Irvin, Sweezy or Okung... Maybe transitional on one of them instead... Who knows... It will be interesting to see how the FO handles those 3...

Im not sure what the FT cost is on Sweezy, but I heard Okung and Irvin would cost about $12-$13M if franchised. If that is the case, no way either one gets the FT.

 

[Anointed One]

Im not sure what the FT cost is on Sweezy, but I heard Okung and Irvin would cost about $12-$13M if franchised. If that is the case, no way either one gets the FT.

I would agree if the team wasn't going to negotiated their contract with the franchise tag designated on them... Some teams will slap the FT and then negotiate a new contract...

 

[JMR]

I don't know how much this will effect the cap.

Per the score

Seahawks won't ask him for the 5 million bouns back

I think the only impact is portion control split between '16 and '17. I am fairly certain we don't get relief for the $5M against the cap though. If that were the case, teams could just then give big bonuses to older players who are going to "retire" and basically have that represent a loophole in the cap.

 

[MKHawk]

The cap only would have been impacted if the Hawks did go after the bonus.

 

[JMR]

The cap only would have been impacted if the Hawks did go after the bonus.

Yeah, if the team went after that money, we probably get equal relief off the cap. I think.

I guess you gotta weigh the benefit of getting some of that back vs the potential (and impossible to quantify) ill effect it may have in dealing with future contracts.

 

[Anointed One]

Yeah, if the team went after that money, we probably get equal relief off the cap. I think.

I guess you gotta weigh the benefit of getting some of that back vs the potential (and impossible to quantify) ill effect it may have in dealing with future contracts.

Plus, cutting him would've cost us more so just letting him keep that 5 million was a smart decision on all fronts...

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I'm sure Lynch and the Seahawks had this all worked out. Truth is if the Seahawks were to go after the 5 million, Lynch could just unretire, then the Seahawks would end up cutting him and then Lynch could retire with the money any way. This was just a much more feel good way to go about it.

 

[blstoker]

 

[HammerDown]