Sando: Julian Peterson Declines Pay Cut, Speculation Regarding His Future Begins

by BrianL on Mar 14, 2009 1:11 AM PDT Comment 23 comments

Since I have no idea how to bump a fanpost to the front page, props to Built2Spill for bringing this to everyone's attention.

It was first reported by Dave "Softy" Mahler of 950 KJR AM this afternoon, but now Sando is chiming in. According to their sources, Julian Peterson was approached by the team and asked to take a pay cut. Peterson refused and now there is speculation that he may be cut or traded sometime in the near future.

As a reference, here's the nitty-gritty of Peterson's value against the cap straight from Sando's NFC West blog:

Peterson's contract, a seven-year deal running through the 2012 season, calls for $6.5 million in salary for 2009. Counting bonus money already paid, the contract counts $8.8 million against the salary cap if Peterson remains on the roster and $4.6 million if the team releases him.

So if released, the Seahawks would save about $4.2 million in cap space.

The obvious implication pointed out by Mahler and Sando is that Peterson's rejection of a pay cut may mean that his future with Seattle is in doubt. I won't go that far yet, but the fact that the Seahawks approached Peterson about his contract at all would seem to indicate that the front office is trying to navigate payroll and cap issues for next season. Whether or not Peterson is actually in any imminent danger of being cut or traded isn't quite clear at this point.

Since John is taking a few well deserved days off and you're stuck with me, let's use this as a discussion topic. If the Seahawks are really in a cap squeeze and needs to get out from under one of the bigger contracts, would Peterson be the one to cut? Someone else?

It's a shame we don't have any more information concerning the health of Walter Jones. Like I've said before, if that knee is going to be a problem moving forward I would cut Big Walt before Peterson or any of the other big contracts.

0 recs | Comment 23 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don't like

players who refuse to discuss contract revisions. Even Big Walt renegotiated to try to keep Hutch. I’m not usually one to complain about athlete salaries and all that, and I love having JP on this team, but I can’t help contrasting this with Warner’s announcement that he’d take a cut to keep Boldin in AZ.

by t.hast12 on Mar 14, 2009 1:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I should clarify

that I don’t support getting rid of the guy, I’m just disappointed in his decision. I guess I should have been prepared for a team superstar to be less than selfless after Shaun anyway.

by t.hast12 on Mar 14, 2009 1:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Warner's "cut"

was supposed to be a million each year for two years of his new contract, of which he is being paid more than $10 mil a year. Those cuts haven’t appeared yet.

It's great to be a Florida Gator!

by Wayward Llama on Mar 14, 2009 2:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Warner's Pay Cut PR

Warner was also getting a lot of flack for his contract forcing the team to lose Boldin. His announcement was in large part a PR move to protect brand Warner.

by brokejumper on Mar 14, 2009 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hard to judge with so few facts.

We don’t know what the team’s proposal was/would’ve been. Yeah, it was selfless of Walt to restructure back in the day. But that was in hopes of keeping his linemate. This sounds like a general effort to find more cap space. JP has stayed healthy and done nothing on or off the field to warrant getting cut, or to take a pay cut for that matter.

What I wonder is how this news got out. If it came from within the organization, it might mean that someone leaked it to make Peterson look bad. If it came from Peterson or his agent, it could mean that he’s pissed about being asked to take a pay cut. Bad scenario either way.

by lemonverbena on Mar 14, 2009 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Brian... does the timing strike you as a little premature?

If in fact Curry is a target, wouldn’t it have made more sense to wait a bit on hits one?

Do you think this is more a cap economics move based on our FA spending spree, and Ju-P just happens to be one of the higher men on the cap-hit / savings-if-released totem pole?

by iverson2169 on Mar 14, 2009 1:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Honestly I'm not sure

I want to say it’s the latter, but I really don’t know where the Seahawks stand in terms of cap space. I’ve seen three different sets of numbers from ATC, Sando, and John Clayton. They range from “Holy shit we’re screwed” to “We’re in good shape.”

by BrianL on Mar 14, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If they wait until after Curry is drafted to try to make a deal...

Won’t Peterson’s trade value drop like a rock? Won’t teams figure the Hawks will have to cut one of their linebackers before entering the season? That’s why I don’t get this talk about waiting until we actually land Curry to move someone at the linebacker position (I’m not saying anyone here is arguing that).

by gobo on Mar 14, 2009 1:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm not so sure...

I would assume it would be a draft day deal (if it were a trade), as I would assume Seattle would like to get picks for Julian.

Any moving of Peterson prior to draft day now creates a giant area of “need” going into that weekend and dramatically lowers the Seahawks leverage as everyone now knows who our target is (or at least who our perceived target would be).

by iverson2169 on Mar 14, 2009 1:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So are you saying that...

A deal right after the Hawks pick Curry at four (assuming they are targeting him and he is still available) to garner further draft picks is viable? I would think the more likely situation is that you trade either Hill or JP before the draft in order to get the maximum value for them while hoping to land Curry but also having a solid back up plan if that doesn’t work out (a la JM’s platooning idea).

by gobo on Mar 14, 2009 1:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think

the deal would be on draft day right before picking Curry. Curry available at four and the Hawks have figured out what would work for them and what wouldn’t. Trade Peterson and pick Curry.

by Snuffleupagus on Mar 14, 2009 7:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's what I'd like to know...

When it comes to restructuring, why aren’t Deion Branch’s feet put to the fire? If you take his 2009 base salary of $4.94 million, and add this year’s prorated portion of his $13 million signing bonus (a little over $2 million), that’s a major nut for a guy who flashes beams of productivity in a sea of disappointment. I fail to understand why Branch isn’t the first player on the Seahawks’ roster asked to restructure.

by Doug Farrar on Mar 14, 2009 6:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This is something I was thinking of last night.

I have no idea why we haven’t heard of the FO talking to Branch about his contract.

by BrianL on Mar 14, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why let a top-shelf linebacker walk to sign w/ another team and receive no compensation?

Releasing a player that good would be dumb. Pay the man, ask him again, or trade as a last resort, but don’t release him. He’s too valuable, IMO.

by Misfit74 on Mar 14, 2009 7:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

well

I guess I can understand the rational that the dline makes the linebacker the same way the oline makes the running back but cutting Julian Peterson makes no sense. If they are dead set on acquiring Redding because the team feels like he will be a huge upgrade then so be it but why even sign Cole in the first place? Theres your money you save by releasing Peterson. Ugh this makes no sense!

by Hancock.Brett on Mar 14, 2009 8:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

in order for this to really save any money

they’d have to sign a linebacker for less then 4.2 million. Otherwise it would still be a wash, plus you’d get a lesser player. Would Curry cost less then 4.2 million? Or Derrick Brooks (who at 35 wouldn’t be nearly as productive)? Cutting Peterson doesn’t make much sense, asking for a pay cut, sure why not provided he doesn’t get his feelers hurt.

Also I highly doubt getting rid of Peterson would be a precursor to drafting Curry. First of all, there’s no guarantee Curry will be there at #4, and if he’s not (which he most likely won’t be) then what?

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 14, 2009 9:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Salary perspective:

Gholston’s salary as the first LB selected (6th overall) below. It goes w/out saying that Curry’s deal would be more at pick 1.04

5 years, 50 million dollar contract with the New York Jets on July 24, 2008. The base value of the contract is worth 32.5 million dollars with 21 million dollars in guaranteed money. Gholston will earn base salaries of $295,000(2008), $2,900,000(2009), $3,480,000(2010), $4,060,000(2011) and $4,640,000(2012). Gholston earned a roster bonus of 2.025 million in 2008. There are likely another 7-8 million in easily reachable incentives which can be earned.

It is interesting how the base salary is very low in the first year, but the guaranteed money would still be astronomical in a Curry deal. How exactly that is spread out for cap-purposes, I’m not the one…

Keep JP. NO Curry (and I agree that there’s an excellent chance he’ll be gone by 4, anyway)

by Misfit74 on Mar 14, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs