Could Russell Wilson’s departure from Seattle be a matter of “when” not “if”?

Getty Images

As explained here when news of Russell Wilson‘s April 15 deadline first emerged, the “or else” to a long-term deal before the time limit for doing one wasn’t that Wilson would hold out. It was that he wouldn’t sign one, at least not until hitting the open market and forcing the Seahawks to compete with other teams for his services.

Peter King’s report from Monday morning regarding Wilson’s now-or-never position regarding a long-term deal with the Seahawks means that, unless he signs one-year deals for the rest of his career, he eventually will leave.

Whether it happens in 2022, when the Seahawks would have to pay $52.43 million to franchise-tag Wilson under current franchise-tag rules, or in 2023, when the 44-percent rule would drive the number to $75.4 million for one more year (the NFLPA believes a fourth franchise tag isn’t available at all), the Seahawks at some point will let Wilson hit the open market. And if Wilson will “never” sign another long-term deal with the Seahawks, he presumably will sign one with another team.

That’s presumably why the Seahawks believe Wilson wants to play elsewhere. That conclusion is a reasonable response to one of the boldest all-in moves an NFL player has made: Sign me to the long-term deal I want now, or I never will sign a long-term deal with you again.

Whether Wilson and agent Mark Rodgers mean it remains to be seen. But the Seahawks seem to be taking the threat/promise seriously. Whether they’re taking it seriously enough to give Wilson what he wants (i.e., a guaranteed percentage of the salary cap) remains to be seen — later today.

12 responses to “Could Russell Wilson’s departure from Seattle be a matter of “when” not “if”?

  1. Did he say that he wanted a guaranteed portion of the cap? If he did, I missed it.

    Also if he did, they should get rid of him now. He is 30 years old, how many years does he have left at a high level (if you believe that is where he is playing right now) that would make him worth the % he would want?

    Also this idea that the players can hold the teams hostage should be squashed immediately. Only the select few can get away with that, and when they do they damage the ability of other players to get paid as well. How many players either weren’t or aren’t going to get paid because of Antonio Brown this year and his antics?

    While I have no issue with players “getting paid”, I do have issues with them not playing out their contracts or the I’m not the highest paid player any more wah. You should’ve thought about that before signing a long term deal.

    Queue the but the owners can get rid of players and that isn’t fair BS, and that is what it is. The players are performing a service and if they aren’t performing at the level of what they are being paid, the person paying for the service has the right to terminate the contract. Could you imagine having to pay for an over-priced plumber even after they weren’t delivering on the contract promises? No, you would fire them, just as you would any employee that wasn’t living up to their job responsibilities. I understand that players aren’t plumbers, however most people aren’t billionaire team owners either, however the dynamic is the same.

  2. Once players sign for a percentage of the cap what motivation do the owners have to ever raise it? They need to be careful what they ask for.

  3. This % of the cap bs is nonsense. The cap goes up and that money is spent to make the entire team better…not fatten the bank account of one player. I think Wilson is a tremendous player and a rare talent, but giving him a % of the cap will destroy the team. I’d rather draft a young quarterback and start over frankly…if that’s the case.

  4. The April deadline does not mean now or never. It merely means he will not negotiate between April 15 and the end of the 2019 season, if Wilson is to be believed. That also means that he won’t hold out and that he will concentrate on playing well. Playing well in the final season of one’s contract has many benefits. It means he can demand a good contract from Seattle and if he cannot get one he thinks he deserves, he can either get the franchise tag for $30 million (not exactly trump change) or he can test the open market and get good offers. So, if there is no deal before the season begins (April 15 is likely not a hard deadline, because he is not gong to abruptly stop negotiating if both sides are making progress, he just does not want to keep negotiating well into the season), he will try to have one of the best season he can have and go from there.

  5. They should trade Clark sign Wilson to % of cap deal at 30yrs old and who’s entire game is based off mobility. Then when he goes down to injury we will have a cap tight team with a mediocre hurt 5ft 10 QB. Sounds Great.

  6. Wilsons agent is a baseball agent, where they don’t have a hard salary cap, so he’s used to demanding more. Its a proven fact that you can’t win with a very good but not great QB if he’s getting > 15% of the cap, unless you have an insanely good back to back draft, fining multiple hall of famers on day 2 and day 3.

    The Seahawks need to face reality and trade him. Russel Wilson is a very good QB with a year left on his contract. Many teams (such as the Giants) would give up a lot for him. He should be productive for at least 5 more years.

  7. Lol at all the same people thinking the Hawks are doomed. You didn’t get your wish last year and you won’t anytime soon.

    Russell isn’t going anywhere and the Hawks will continue to succeed.

    Sorry to ruin your Monday.

  8. Sure, go ahead and give him $75M in 2023. It’s not like it matters. They are no longer a contender. The longer they hang on to him the worse it will be for the team.

  9. Seattle, don’t do a Cousins type deal and hamstring your future. He’s just not worth it.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!