Seahawk Addicts
I can see the arguments for both sides but I'm a little disappointed to hear this if it is true. Everybody seems so focused on winning that I would hate for this to be a distraction.
Why not re-do the contract to have performance pay in there, so IF he does produce at a ertain level, he will gain more money? That seems like a win-win to me.
On the other hand, you rarely see clubs going to a player who is hurt or not producing and saying that they want to pay them less......especially when they are still in their current contract.
Bobby does have the leverage here in my opinion, without him, we will have to count on young talent to step up, and that could and probably would cause me to chew my fingernails off during the season.
Why not just make a new contract extension with a small roster bonus on the front end that pays him an extra couple of million from any extra cap money this year (assuming there is some extra once everyone is signed). I don't see us spending a significant amount more on FAs.
I've had Bobby Engram at my house before...this guy is a stand-up individual and has flown under the radar his whole career...it's time someone show's him some respect...if any athlete in this league deserves to be paid more money it is him! I am usually appalled by the what seems to be money hungry pro-athletes, but Bobby is in a league of his own!
Give Bobby his money!!
In my opinion, it is too early to make judgments on what the team should do.
We need to hear what Bobby wants.
If he wants a 4 or 5 year extension, well that probably isn't going to happen. If he wants a raise on this years salary, I don't see why the team wouldn't consider that.
Also, we have one unnamed source on this, Bobby could show up today and it is no big deal. While understandable, this seems pretty out of character for him.
By missing workouts, all he does is increase the reps Hasselbeck gets with the young guys which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Isn't there a better way of doing this than missing practise?
Can't they sort something out in the background? I mean whats the possible situation if Engram doesn't get paid? He holds out? What would he gain for doing that?
I agree with elgranderojo, give him an extension that includes next year with a roster bonus that goes against this years cap. No long term cap problems if he goes down or stops producing.
I think he is great but I also think he is a little bit of a system guy. He is very effective in the slot but he would not have been as productive on alot of other teams. He is in the best system for his skills and has a great connection with Hass.
That being said, throw the guy a bone here. For years he has been our go to 1st down guy and there is no reason to think at all he wont be for another year or two. He keeps himself in excellent shape and his game is predicated on speed so losing 1/2 step doesnt hurt him as much as it would other guys.
meant to say "game is not predicated on speed"
I like what every one is saying here. Tear up his old contract (if possible) give him a new contract at the same pay, but give him a roster bonus and put some incentives in his contract, so he can earn more if he produces.
Bobby's got to realize if they give him a big contract towards the end of his career, it makes him that much of a bigger target to get cut like SA when they are up against the cap and looking at guys past their prime to lose.
I hope Bobby has as good of a year or better in 2008, but I have a feeling that was his peak.
The real problem here is over-paying Branch.
Just because the team is overpaying for Branch and Burleson, doesn't mean they are (or should be) dumb enough to overpay for another...
If it weren't for Burleson's kick returning ability, he really would be a bust. At least Nate has a 1,000 yard season, something I can't say about Branch.
So, for all of you who think he deserves more money...
That also means you think guys who are underpaid should also sit out and ask for more money?
That means Mebane should sit out until the Hawks give him more?
Even though Tapp isn't a star, he's still better and worth more than what he's making. You all think he should sit out too?
Great precedent Timmy would be setting if he caved into an old WR who nobody basically wanted last off-season who only has one year left on his contract.
bobby should go out and play well and earn a two year deal. he is 35 and is not going to get a big deal and doesnt deserve one. he plays well in our offense which is great. sometimes players want recognition and that is not always in the form of dollars. maybe he just needs to hear how important he is to the team one or two more times.
Then maybe we should cut branch? Or is it possible that it takes 3 years to really "catch" on in this system?
I like Bobby and appreciate how clutch he has been. That said, he signed the contract, and was happy with it when he did. It's not like our FO was out to be unfair to him. Didn't we pay him through his thyroid issues?
Not honoring contracts is getting to be the elephant in the room in the NFL. I kind of agree with what bobbyk said above; do all players that become "underpaid" as salaries sky-rocket, sit out?
I recognize that this may be the proverbial "rock and hard place." Bobby has been consistent and steady. He's been a team guy and maybe Ruskell makes an exception and gets Bobby a year extension with a better payday that recognizes his efforts.
Either way, we don't need this distraction.
Cutting Branch is an interesting idea. He would have to be healthy first, or else their could be an injury grievence.
However, just for arguments sake....
Cutting Branch as a June 1st cut would actually save the about 900K off the cap this year, and then about 1.1 next year.
Here is the proverbial problem though. If he is on the roster week 1, his salary is guaranteed. Which means the team wouldn't save the money. If he is on the PUP, he can't be released.
hmmmmmmm
Anyway, I think they should keep Branch. He is not terrible. He is actually a pretty good player when on the field. The problem is the nagging injuries that seem to plague him.
The problem with paying Engram performance-based pay incentives is that it doesnt reward him for being a security blanket, and it doesnt reward him for last year.
If Branch recovers quickly and Burleson and the young'uns step up, Engram wont be thrown as many passes. If he's got an incentive-laden contract and that happens, he's gonna be pissed.
So its a catch-22 for everyone. I think the Hawks would be smart to quietly pay him a bonus for last year, and tell him that if he ends up being our main man again this year, we will kick down more. They could also sign him for another two-year contract and give him a nice bonus. That way his last years pay isnt much--so even if his skills decline, he will have a shot at sticking, and if we feel we have to cut him, it wont hurt our cap.
Barring injuries, Engram looks to be good for at least another couple seasons. Maybe more, if we dont keep throwing him 90 passes a season.
They should be able to work something out. Engram has been a class act, and he saved last season single-handedly. All while making half what Burly makes.
If I was being paid half what my co-workers are and I outperformed them, I'd be pissed too.
There have been rumblings for a couple years that Bobby wasnt happy with his contract. He got pretty huffy at D-Jack for his whining about Branch's pay--which is funny, because now Engram is pulling a D-Jack. But back then D-Jack made 4 million+ and Bobby wasnt making jack...
As long as Bobby shows up for camp, they need to cough up some dough for him. Its ridiculous to pay guys like Branch and Burly based on unrealized potential, and then refuse to reward guys like Bobby. It isnt like Bobby wants Shaun Alexander reward money either.
Come one, Timmay! Dont make this another Ice Fisherman Fiasco!
If this is true, Bobby just moved down in my list of favorite Hawks. When the Bears cut him and he was rehabbing back from injury Holmgren gave him a contract. When he had his thyroid condition and his contract was up, Tim resigned him. Now he is only 1-year into his new contract and he wants something more (allegedly)?
Bobby, you had a fantastic year but let's not forget why you did so. Our run game sucked so we were a strictly passing team. That WILL NOT be the case this year and because of that you will probably not have the opportunity to duplicate '07 numbers. You also have one of the BEST QB's in the game throwing you the rock, looking for you in critical situations, and giving you the opportunity to make plays. Yes you are clutch, and yes Branch making more money than you may not be fair, but you had your chance to sign elsewhere and you chose to stay in Seattle. Play out your contract and at the end of the year you can dictate who you want to play for and for how much. Good luck finding a team willing to pay much for a 36-year old WR in a new system.
As far as the discussion about teams cutting players and how it is not fair to them, that's why agents try to get huge signing bonuses for their players. They get their money so don't feel sad for them.
Bobby has to understand this goes both ways in sports. We have been paying Tubbs for playing in how many games? Contracts are a always a risk for both sides, player and team. If the player blows up he is under paid and wants a new deal. If they suck or get hurt the team has made a huge mistake, GM's can get fired (except Matt Millen), and it can hurt flexibility cap wise.
It really only makes sense to redo deals for guys that are young and you expect to be long term contributors to your team - tatupu, Tru etc.
Maybe he just wants a small token amount to boost his confidence but paying him based on last year will not happen. They did that once with a former MVP and fan favorite. Paid on past performance and sentiment, didnt work out so well for the team.
In the real world if you work on a contract basis and decided your deal was no good anymore and just stopped showing up you could be in a lot of trouble. Why is there a double standard for players? Why is $1.75m not enough?
BobbyK, I see what you mean. You can't pay every guy more who deserves it or else you'll break your cap. Perhaps Engram and his agent should have kept this low key and tried to figure something out rather than bringing it to the media. Now everyone KNOWS if the front office caves and he gets paid. I'm sure the FO would have much rather paid him quietly; thus respecting their position and getting bobby some extra money.
maybe bobby should ask for some of branches money huh guyz???? that would be nice. I hope this source is wrong but mr. engram probly does wish for some more retirement money. I just wish i would make one year of his salary. tax free.
There is a saying - "We don't negotiate with terrorists". The reason they say it is because if they publicly admitted negotiating with terrorist then every tom, dick and harry will expect you cave to them as well and it would BREED many more terrorists.
Not calling Bobby a terrorist but I think you get the point.
I am willing to give Bobby the benefit of the doubt because he has always been the epitome of class. We don't know what has been happening behind the scenes and judging from past experience with other players I'd say it's entirely possible Ruskell and his hardball negotiation tactics are to blame.
too bad for Bobby his best year came when he was 34. Crappy timing for him. That is life. Who would have guessed it would have happened after he was sick during the ENTIRE 2006 season!!! Did he give any of the money back after the Hawks had to hold his hand that year?
Ruskell playing hardball is what keeps our cap in good shape and what keeps the Seahawks competative in the playoffs year after year. He didn't cave in to Trufant as an example and consequently has him signed for 8.3 million a year rather than the 9.5 or 10 million that Tru was asking for. That's around 10 million saved over the life of the contract. That will fund a pretty good player for the next six years to play alongside Trufant.
Engram missed a bunch of games two years ago and then excelled last year. That sort of thing tends to even out. Ruskell certainly doesn't want to set the example of allowing a player to demand a salary increase for past performance successfully or that will become the norm for any player who feels that his play exceeded his contract for a given season.
That being said, any player that wants to give up a pretty good guaranteed salary for a speculative one where he's paid according to how well he produces is probably going to find willing GM's to write that contract. Pay Engram something like $500K base salary for making the roster then it goes up to $750K for 40 - 64 catches, $1.5 million for 65 - 79 catches, $2.0 million for 80 - 94 catches, $3.0 million for 95 - 109 catches and $3.5 million for 110 catches and more. Do you think Bobby would sign that contract in place of the one he has now? Of course not because if he gets hurt for a lot of games again, he makes $500K instead of the $1.5 million he is guaranteed now. He has to make 65 catches to earn his present salary which might be harder to get this season when we expect our running game to rebound. It's like a salesman working on salary versus commission.
I wouldn't have too much heartburn offering him an extra incentive that he can attain with another very good season which isn't really paying him for past performance but giving him a good reason to duplicate that performance this season. Of course it's harder to do that now that he's made such a big issue of it in public. Ruskell has to be careful to not do anything that he won't be willing to do for another player that ends up ion a similar situation in the future.
As far as Branch goes, it's unfortunate that he was injured but I still think that it was a good contract at the time it was done. He didn't have any red flags for injuries coming out of the Patriots and last season before he was injured, he was on pace to put up better numbers than Engram did by no small amount. Ruskell can't see into the future and see where players are going to become injured. If Kearney had gotten injured and not made the pro bowl, Ruskell would have been blasted for that signing with everyone saying Kearney was a bust. Same can be said for Peterson in 2006 or the two safteys signed last season (Russell and Grant). Branch didn't go through our training camp the first season he was with us and therefore wasn't fully integrated into our passing game until last season. As I said, he was putting up spectatcular numbers before his first injury and if he'd remained healthy, we'd all be singing a much different tune on that signing. All Tim Ruskell can do is what he thinks is best for the team and then let the chips fall where they may.
Excellent Points BillT
Commenting by HaloScan
