Seattle's Sweetheart Deal with Leroy Hill

by John Morgan on May 7, 2009 10:02 AM PDT

It's times like this that I'm proud I stuck to my guns in support of Tim Ruskell. This deal is beyond belief.

The deal counts $5 million against the salary cap in the first year, down from the $8.3 million total for the franchise tag. The deal includes escalator clauses starting in the third year, but the team could walk away after two seasons and save money under the cap. In other words, Seattle won its gamble in withdrawing the franchise tag.

Hill costs $6.4 million against the cap in 2010.

Seattle locks up Hill for his age 27 and age 28 seasons at an average of less than $6 million a season. That makes his second season essentially another contract year. Seattle can then keep Hill, opt out of the contract or use their leverage to renegotiate the deal. The Seahawks hold all the cards.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

When I read these details yesterday, I was pleased.

It appears we’ll be paying a top LB below-market value as far as his yearly salary goes, and the signing bonus…what signing bonus? This deal spells relief. Relief enough to add Ken Lucas’s (I believe) 2.3 million next season. The opt-out language ensures if Hill @#%s up, we can move on. I hope he stays on the right path.

by Misfit74 on May 7, 2009 10:15 AM PDT reply actions

I thought Rolaids spelled relief?

by Wilder. on May 8, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

I think it's probably a good deal for Hill as well

I don’t know for sure, but I really don’t think any other team was offering him close to what Seattle was. Look at Foote, he could only get a one year deal, that’s it. Probably not worth a ton of money either. Ruskell certainly played it well, but I think it’s a fair shake for both. If Hill plays up to his potential, he gets paid pretty well, if he doesn’t or has more off the field incidences, he’s gone without hurting the team.

Not as good of a deal as if he’d signed the franchise tag, of course. What was his agent thinking?

by B.B.Finnegan on May 7, 2009 10:30 AM PDT reply actions

Well I guess I take back what I said earlier about the Ruskell signing.

Like I said before, and like ABender and John Morgan have pointed out, investing so much money into three linebackers is probably not the best idea, but there was nothing else on the market (especially by draft time). 2 year deal for less than $12? with Seattle having a chance of restructuring or cutting or even trading Hill? Sounds good to me.

McCoy McCoy 2010, also acceptable, Russell Okung, Ndamukong Suh, Dez Bryant, Ciron Black, Eric Berry, and Bryan Bulaga.

by LantermanC on May 7, 2009 10:37 AM PDT reply actions

It's genius

by stufr on May 7, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Absolutely terrific deal. I couldn't be happier with the terms of the contract.

by abender20 on May 7, 2009 10:49 AM PDT reply actions

Does anyone else have the feeling that, at least on paper, Ruskell basically won the off season?

by Tyopiod on May 7, 2009 11:17 AM PDT reply actions

Yeah...

John Clayton does.

McCoy McCoy 2010, also acceptable, Russell Okung, Ndamukong Suh, Dez Bryant, Ciron Black, Eric Berry, and Bryan Bulaga.

by LantermanC on May 7, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions

lol @ Kansas City signing "Mark Ingram"

The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.

by Nick Andron on May 7, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions

And yes, we're doing pretty well.

I think it was in February when I said we’d either get Hill and draft Crabtree, or get Housh and get Curry. Turns out we got Hill AND Housh AND drafted Curry, and signed a CB that I love in Lucas, as well as obtained a 1st round pick in next year’s draft, a draft I think is loaded in talent, especially at our positions of need next year (QB, DT, S)

McCoy McCoy 2010, also acceptable, Russell Okung, Ndamukong Suh, Dez Bryant, Ciron Black, Eric Berry, and Bryan Bulaga.

by LantermanC on May 7, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions

How do we know, today, what our positions of need are?!?!

I don’t know guys… I know everyone’s excited about Denver’s 1st (and this year’s draft in general) but let’s just hold off on what our “need” positions are… There’s a lot that is going to happen between now and then that will further illuminate what our needs will be.

We could lose someone to injury (God I hope not!). We could have a young safety step up and be ready to replace Russell by week 4. Hass could look fully healthy and Teel look like the 2nd coming of him, not David Greene, by the end of next year. We could let Deion and Nate and Julius and TJ walk at the end of next year. Suddenly our needs are quite different.

I’m just saying… what we think today are our needs, by the time next year runs around, may or may not be our primary needs. Let’s stop pimping Mays… or Colt… or Florida Jesus, or Bradford, or whoever. Let’s just let it play out and see what happens! :)

Please, for the LOVE OF GOD, stop suggesting next year's 1st round pick (or picks) be used for Taylor Mays and or a QB of the future. Let's just let the season unfold, people, and evaluate much deeper in the process!!!

by Tyler Jorgensen on May 7, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Can I at least pimp Gerald McCoy?

McCoy+Mebane > Williams Wall

Even so, there look to be quite a few top-notch DTs available in next year’s draft…but to your point Bryant could emerge, nullifying even that perceived ‘need’. I agree with your thinking overall.

~~Tebow~~ ~~Mays~~

by Misfit74 on May 7, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Better than pimping Colt McCoy.

Paris Hilton, Burberry plaid, reality TV, mullets, Zima, Dubya, and the Sonics being sold to Oklahoma City. - Yahoo Answer results for "7 Signs of the Apocalypse"

by bluemax on May 7, 2009 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions

Well... worst case everyone has a career ending injury,

best case, Bryant,Teel and Greene, are the real deals, which would be great because then we could draft BPA without any regards to position.

McCoy McCoy 2010, also acceptable, Russell Okung, Ndamukong Suh, Dez Bryant, Ciron Black, Eric Berry, and Bryan Bulaga.

by LantermanC on May 7, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions

Fantastic deal.

by BrianL on May 7, 2009 11:17 AM PDT reply actions

As a fan...

…I was, and continue to be, pleased by the organization’s deft execution of the draft and the free agent situation this off-season (especially the Leroy Hill issue). I find myself wondering how much of it was facilitated by the absence of Holmgren from the process.

by Furious Blue on May 7, 2009 11:18 AM PDT reply actions

Good question. (absensce...)

by Misfit74 on May 7, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions

I think the Holmgren and Ruskell partnership was inefficient and eventually hurt the team

It was gangbusters in 2005, though.

by John Morgan on May 7, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions

Inefficient because of differing philosophies?

Or that both had some authority over the same types of decisions?

by Misfit74 on May 7, 2009 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions

Both

plus I sense both are big egos not used to compromising.

by John Morgan on May 7, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions

Maybe both.

I’m by no means a Holmgren-basher, but my perception is that he tended toward being overly dictatorial and self-righteous. And reluctant to admit that he wasn’t the top tier of the hierarchy anymore. I’m just thinking that maybe having one less big (and somewhat bruised) ego with authority at the table might make personnel operations more efficient and productive.

by Furious Blue on May 7, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions