Redding's Big Rate? Not So Fast...
by Doug Farrar on Mar 31, 2009 8:47 PM PDT
Email
PrintFrom my good friend Brian McIntyre, who charts games for FO, keeps Mac's Football Blog, and works with me at Falcon Insider:
One of the conditions the Seattle Seahawks had before agreeing to trade linebacker Julian Peterson to the Detroit Lions for Corey Redding and a 5th round pick was Redding's willingness to restructure the 5-years and $32.225 million dollars he had remaining on the 7-year, $49 million contract he signed with the Lions in 2007.
And they've restructured the hell out of it.
According to NFLPA records, Redding is now signed through just the 2009 season, with a base salary of $2 million dollars. Redding was due to make $3.55 million dollars this season ($3.3M base salary plus a $250K workout bonus), so the Seahawks have saved an additional $1.55 million in salary cap space, bringing the net cap savings from the Peterson-for-Redding and a 5th round pick to $2.2 million dollars.Seattle has also gotten out from under the $28.675 million dollars remaining on the back-end of Redding's deal, which was to run through 2013. (Peterson has not restructured his contract, which is scheduled to pay him $30.5 million dollars between 2009-12, since being acquired by Detroit.)
UPDATE: Mike Sando of ESPN.com has confirmed the restructure, adding that Redding will receive just the $2 million dollar base salary in 2009.
Since being acquired from Detroit, Redding has been billed as a defensive end on 1st and 2nd down, who'll slide inside to rush the passer from the defensive tackle position on passing downs. In other words, he was to be what the Seahawks had hoped Lawrence Jackson would be in his rookie season. A restructure this severe, though, combined with reports that the Seahawks had concerns about Redding's knee, indicates that Redding is more likely to be a rotational defensive end who can spell Brandon Mebane at the three-technique, instead of the defensive line dynamo he was originally thought to be.
What it also indicates was that Julian Peterson was 100% on his way out of Seattle, deal or no deal with Detroit, and that the defensive line is still an area the Seahawks could address on April 25, or more likely, April 26.
53 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So the 2010-2013 years are not updated,
or they are just gone for good?
Just based on the NFLPA records part from above
or another source?
Sando called the Seahawks and they confirmed
that the old contract basically doesn’t exist as far as I can tell. Instead, it’s 2 mil a year (maybe some incentives have been added in there, I don’t know) and he becomes (or has a chance, can’t tell which) an unrestricted free agent at the end of the year.
Reading that right now.
I see now where Farrar got his link, but his link just goes to the blog home-page so I didn’t check that.
Interesting.
Correct, I understand that now.
First, I “hovered” over your links, and neither was a link to a specific story, just the homepages for the guy you mentioned. I actually thought you got your info over the phone, I did not go to his blog.
If I saw a link like this I would have went to his blog and would not have confused myself over where everyone was getting their info. I actually googled Corey Redding and found nothing in the first page of news(sorted by date) except the FGs story before asked for the confirmation.
After I read Sando’s story I saw his link to the blog’s story and recognized why I didn’t figure it out.
I don't know.
Trading a guy who was at fair market value for a guy who is being paid less than market value seems ok to me. Sure we only have him for a year, but we can always sign some more guys at market value.
That I'm fine with
reports that the Seahawks had concerns about Redding’s knee, indicates that Redding is more likely to be a rotational defensive end who can spell Brandon Mebane at the three-technique, instead of the defensive line dynamo he was originally thought to be.
That seems like a bit of a bummer.
Crap. Didn't even read that.
I guess that makes a Ziggy Hood or Sen’Derrick Marks pick more likely? Unless Ruskell is a big believer in Cole, which I hope isn’t the case.
I didn't realize the knee
Was a surprise. From what I’d read in the Detroit blogs, confirmation of the trade was briefly held up until Redding passed the physical (I know, I know, all trades are contingent upon passing the physical), made notable by “Seahawks’ concerns about Reddings knee”. The DE role isn’t necessarily a rusult of the knee, but the Lions have since said they’d planned to use him the same way (DE on 1st and 2nd downs, DT on passing downs).
hah I just posted the same thing.
I deleted mine though.
Basically, Seattle saves some money and sets itself up to have options next year. By then, we’ll know where we stand with Red Bryant and Colin Cole. If the team feels it really needs him, it can try and re-sign him. If not, it can let him get paid elsewhere and we have others that we feel are good enough. So basically, we get a guy who’s going to work hard for his pay day. And we also get a guy who can help our DL and give our coaching staff time to evaluate our line and let the young guns get some experience without sacrificing (hopefully) playing ability or making our D terrible.
Who will be in line for the Franchinse Tag next year, in case we need it for Redding?
(excluding Hill)
This whole thing screams rebuilding to me
Trading Peterson was just an elaborate way of cutting him. There don’t seem to be many expectations of Redding, not even that he’ll be around next year. A team looking to win anytime wouldn’t trade their best player for nothing but cap space over the next 3 years.
reloading vs. rebuilding
I’m not going to pretend to understand all the nuances of cap management – but between Peterson, Kerney, Hass, and Jones you figure the team was gonna have to bite the bullet somewhere.
But it doesn’t signal “rebuild” to me. I just see this as gaining the necessarily cap flexibility to be able to stay competitive and re-tool each offseason.
One thing I like about Ruskell, is that when he sees the writing on the wall for a player, he’s able to get some value out of it, rather than just an outright release. Like how Boulware was flipped for Babin, Peterson for Redding and the 5th. Not all these chances will work out, but it’s a good way to cycle in good depth and role players … and maybe eventually one will pay off big.
You'd think they'd retain the youngest and arguably most effective of them, that person being Peterson.
The thing about this is that Redding is in a contract season, so he’ll have incentive to play well. Now, if he does even moderately well, he’ll be an UFA by the end of the season and we’re either going to have to shell out big bucks to retain his services or he gets overpaid somewhere else and leaves, and we’re left with scratch. Then what do we do? Colin Cole? Hope Bryant steps up?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 31, 2009 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions
But I don't think we can underestimate the cap advantages we gain from this exchange.
1 to 2 years from now we’ll be ecstatic about being out from under Julians big numbers. I know that doesn’t float anyones boat from an on-field performance standpoint, but it’s one of those moves good franchises make (massaging the cap economics).
by iverson2169 on Mar 31, 2009 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't find this discouraging at all.
This leaves them with more flexibility heading into free agency next year.
Plus, I don’t think it’s a rebuilding move. It’s more of a flexibility move, in that they’re trying get the best talent they can get not just for this year, but in years beyond for as reasonable a price as they can get.
Weez the juice!!
Looking into it further...
The Seahawks, if they don’t re-sign Redding next year, which any deal with him would offset some of the total net salary they owed Julian Peterson, are off the hook for they $7.5 million. That’s a nice chunk of change that they could spend elsewhere.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 31, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed.
$7.5 Million buys a lot on the FA market or re-signing a team’s homegrown talent, especially now that some FAs consider Seattle a good place to play. Rather than cut him, we have a potentially pretty good DT(possibly a run stuffing DE) that only costs $2 Mil and the first pick of the 5th round.
Like...a DT?
Because if/once Redding leaves, we’ll be left with only Mebane, Cole, and a developing Red Bryant.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 1, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, they may draft one this year.
So there may not be a need to get one in free agency next year.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 1, 2009 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions
This is very interesting.
This is an interesting trade-off. We will not know how much Redding can contribute on the field until we see him on the field, regardless of what anyone tells you. I still see upside there with him contributing in a big way this year. As for the lack of additional years. We can get whoever we want with cap space so I don’t see this as a big issue.
This will be an interesting draft.
I'm glad they got rid of Redding's contract, but...
The thing that keeps punching me in the brain is the very real possibility that we won’t have a cap in 2010. The CBA looks dead in the water, and with a new NFLPA head and limited leadership from the owners, it seems like we may have an uncapped year in the near future, and then a possible work stoppage. I know we can’t prepare the team assuming that there will be a work stoppage, but the Cap is almost certainly going to be changed fundamentally within the next 3 years. Maybe “fundamentally” is a bit strong, but are we just freeing up cap space for an uncapped year?
I'm left wondering why Redding would agree to this?
If I’m reading this correctly, he agreed to throw out his existing 5 year deal (5 years remaining) which was to pay him about $25 Mil, including $3.55 Mil in 2009, in return for a 1 year $2 Mil deal. Why??? Did he want out of Detroit THAT bad? Uner any circumstance, that seems excessive.
He probably realized he was going to get cut
And not see a dime of that money anyway – and that it’d be very difficult for him to sign a FA deal approaching that, especially this late in the year. So he figured his best option was to take as much 1-year money as he could, have a good season, and hit FA early next year.
Don't let this scare you
What is so wrong about having a highly motivated player on a one year contract? Mr. Redding would not restructure his contract unless he believed he could come out of it better off in some way. What’s in it for him: 1) Get out of Detroit. 2) Have a great season in 2009 and get rewarded beyond that. 3) Doesn’t have stigma of being cut. He’ll enter free agency with (hopefully) lots of momentum from successful year. He’ll be compared to Justin Tuck now when he is a FA.
It's interesting to see people react with dread
Seattle has added a very good player, for very cheap, that is exiting his prime. I’m perfectly fine with Seattle paying for Redding’s age 29 season, but not his age 30, 31, 32…
People were expecting Redding to fill a different gap
That being our run defense. That’s what I was excited about.
With this scheme, however, he won’t have as much of an impact vs. the run if he’s playing DE on most plays as he would if he was DT right in the middle.
we will have to wait and see..
I don’t think any news article can condemn any of our defensive lineman to any specific position. We have a lot of solid d-lineman now with Kerney/Tapp/Jackson/Atkins/Mebane/Bryant/Cole/Terrill. We will obviously put the guys out on the field who give us the best chance of winning games. It looks more and more like Jackson is the odd-man out, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him traded during the draft, he could probably net a mid-1st round pick, as he was a late 1st in a deep d-line class.
One the one hand, if Redding’s knees are an issue then one can easily understand why he would want to play on the outside at a lighter weight. Still, his versatility to play inside and out is a key selling point for him that he will not want to forfeit entering free agency.
Any late round d-lineman would have a tough time making our roster.
This move keeps looking better and better.
Jackson odd man out?
Whaaaaa? If anybody is the odd man out, it would be Terrill or Atkins. LoJack had a decent rookie season for DE. You cannot toss away a first round pick after an injured rookie season.
I was confused, too
are people using his lowered salary as a proxy for judging his talent? he still seems like a very useful piece of the puzzle.
The restructured contract doesn't bug me
the little tidbit that the ‘Hawks may be concerned about Redding’s knee is what has me a bit bummed.
True - but it may be an indication how the team judges him.
I was very excited about Redding when it appeared that he’d be Bernard’s replacement at 3-tech, allow Bane to stay at 1, and push Cole to a reserve/rotational role.
Cole & Bane as starting DT’s with Redding as a situational DE? eh, not so much. And hearing that the team has reduced his cap charge to an amount that’s in-line with that job is further evidence that is how they intend to use him.
I still think he’s a good piece of the puzzle, and like John said there’s mondo benefit that we won’t be on the hook for his declining seasons. But I’m just left with the impression that the team is going to wind up utilizing all these DL pieces is less than the optimal way.
I might like his 29 season, too
But he’ll be 28 for over half of this season. He doesn’t turn 29 until Nov.15th…While getting out from under JP’s contract is big, I would like to be excited about Redding as more than a 1 year stop-gap. I’d rather it be a two year deal, but I think he’ll help as a highly motivated player this season. Maybe I’m overestimating him, but from what I’ve seen on film, he can be a disruptive player.
If he is motivated enough,
perhaps we see awesome results. If we lose him to FA and a huge contract, that means a likely great compensatory pick. If he fills a great role with us but does not have huge numbers on the field maybe we get to re-sign him, but at a much lesser salary. And how much longer should he be a disruptive player? Should we be paying a premium for the declining years like with Grant Wistrom and Kearney?
I think the Chargers got a 4th rounder for Michael Turner.
So I’d hedge my bets against a good compensatory pick.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 1, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions
They had two 4th rounders total,
which is a pretty good compensatory haul. And I’m not sure what the full in-out score was for the Chargers.
I’m not saying count on being duly compensated, but that we don’t lose completely if he blows up and leaves for a big contract.
He's a rent a player with knee injuries playing out of position
if he even has a position. I didn’t like the Peterson trade at any point, finding out that the guy we dealt him for doesn’t factor into the plans beyond this year doesn’t make me like it any more. The trade and the contract restructure just seems to me like the Hawks have committed to mediocrity for the next 2 years while they rebuild. The waiting for Stafford era doesn’t get me excited for football.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Report: Tebow sends cease and desist letter to maker of Jesus-y Jets T-shirts
- Joe McKnight says too much McDonald’s helped him gain 16 pounds in offseason
- Nick Mangold says goodbye to some chest hair on ‘Late Night with Jimmy Fallon’
- Saints will honor suspended Sean Payton with empty chairs
- Junior Seau’s home burglarized just days after his death
