Marcus Trufant takes a steep pay cut

AP

Linebacker Aaron Curry isn’t the only member of the Seahawks who agreed to a reduced contract earlier this month.  Veteran cornerback Marcus Trufant has dropped his pay dramatically for 2011, per a league source.

The source says that Trufant’s base salary for 2011 dropped from $5.9 million to $3 million via a new contract signed on August 20.

Trufant can earn it all back based on his performance this year.  The new deal contains “not likely to be earned” incentives, which pay up to $2.65 million based on Trufant earning a spot on the Pro Bowl team and making a specific number of interceptions.  The other $250,000 can be earned by meeting a specific playing-time threshold.

The rest of Trufant’s contract (base salary of $7.2 million in 2012 and base salary of $8.8 million in 2013, with a $100,000 workout bonus each year) remains unchanged.

Coach Pete Carroll recently dismissed the new Curry contract as having been done “months” ago, even though the deal was signed on August 13.  In Trufant’s case, maybe Carroll will say that it was done only “weeks” ago.

22 responses to “Marcus Trufant takes a steep pay cut

  1. I’m cool with this. We have a lot of up and coming talent on the Seahawks and if Trufant wants to get paid he’s gonna have to perform. Just like everyone else on the team. Someone needed to light a fire under these guys and Pete has done that nicely.

  2. it’s just playing with cap numbers… i’m sure its all bonus incentives… Carrol’s known to be a cheater.. I’m sure he’s trying to find a way to cheat the cap

  3. All the trolls that knock players for holding out should remember this amd similar posts. Where’s the outrage about a contract being a contract?

  4. What’s with these greedy players not honoring the contract they signed with their employers…. Oh wait.

  5. “The rest of Trufant’s contract (base salary of $7.2 million in 2012 and base salary of $8.8 million in 2013, with a $100,000 workout bonus each year) remains unchanged.”

    Thats fancy contact language for, “We plan on drafting your replacement in the 2012 draft. And that we plan on cutting you right before we get to the 53 man limit, unless said rookie gets banged up and we need you (or the really quick beer man in the stands) to fill in just like Lawyer Milloy does now.”

  6. @asrabi, you are absolutely correct.

    Teams, sportswriters, and fans are always quick and visceral in their condemnation of players who hold-out for more money, revised contracts, or because they are unhappy playing under certain conditions. You’ll hear disparaging comments such as, “you signed the contract now just play and shut up.” But no one ever criticizes the team for tearing up a contract. They justify it as a business decision. What business signs contracts and then changes them when one party has no other option other than to accept the change? That is illegal in pretty much every other industry in the U.S.

    I think I would be fine with it either way if there was not the double-standard of condemnation. If a player is more talented than his contract indicates — as Chris Johnson clearly is, for example — than he should never be criticized for holding out. Because the moment he has a down year the team will turn around and drop his salary arbitrarily.

  7. Maybe Curry’s contract was agreed to in principle months ago but it just now consummated on the 13th. I can’t imagine Carroll and co. hesitating on restructuring that horrendous bust’s undeserved contract intentionally.

  8. Like him or hate him, I like a guy who is willing to base at least part of his earnings on performance. One more Hayneworthless/Russell story and I’ll be sick!!

  9. What I dont like is it’s ok for a NFL teams to make there players take a Take it or be Cut contracts to reduce there money for the year is OK…but if a player asks for more money when he has a GOOD year everyone yells, Play Out The Contract! Stop Crying About It And Play!…Why is ok for one and not the other?

Leave a Reply