Keary Colbert Trade Cost Seattle Seahawks Two Draft Picks
It turns out that desperation trade for wide receiver Keary Colbert last season cost the Seahawks two draft picks. So instead of having 12, they'll have 10.
The Seahawks picked up three seventh-round compensatory picks from the NFL on Monday, but they missed out on a fourth because of the Colbert trade.
The Seahawks got seventh-rounders for losing Chuck Darby, Ellis Wyms and Kevin Bentley, and they would have had another one (for D.J. Hackett) if not for the decimation of their receiving corps by injuries in 2008.
In September, team president Tim Ruskell (pictured) gave up Seattle's fifth-rounder for Colbert. Even though he was cut just two months later, the NFL still counted Colbert as an addition in its compensatory formula, leaving the Hawks with three comp picks instead of four.
With the fifth-rounder they got from Detroit in the Julian Peterson-Cory Redding deal, the Seahawks now have the following 10 picks in this year's draft: 4, 37, 68, 105, 137 (first pick in fifth round), 178, 213, 245, 247, 248. Any of the picks can be traded except the comp picks (245, 247, 248).
First couple of opponents narrowed down
With the NFL's opening-week prime-time games announced Monday, it looks like the Seahawks will probably open the season at Qwest Field against a division foe or else Detroit, Jacksonville, or Tampa Bay.
So, if the Seahawks aren't at the Colts in Week 1, they will be hosting a game against one of the following: Arizona, Detroit, Jacksonville, San Francisco, St. Louis, or Tampa Bay.
In Week 2, assuming the Seahawks won't be selected for "Monday Night Football," they will be on the road because the Mariners are at home. And with baseball games scheduled for Arizona, Dallas, Minnesota, and St. Louis, the Seahawks figure to play at Green Bay, Houston, Indy, or San Francisco.
Redding's salaries didn't change
When defensive lineman Cory Redding was acquired for linebacker Julian Peterson a week and a half ago, it was reported that Redding had restructured his contract to make the deal happen.
However, he said he wasn't aware of that, and it turns out none of his salaries changed. So if his contract was redone as reported, it was to adjust bonus payouts.
He reportedly was due $250,000 workout bonuses this year and in 2010, plus a $2 million roster bonus in 2011 and bonuses in 2012 and 2013 totaling $2.5 million or so.
Including a $3.3 million salary, he was set to count $3.55 million against the cap in 2009. His future salaries also remain the same: $4.3 million in 2010, $5 million in 2011, $6 million in 2012, $7 million in 2013.
The Seahawks now have to hope a minor knee tendon issue does not become a major problem. As a precaution against that, the Seahawks reportedly will hold Redding out of the April 7-9 minicamp.
If Julian Peterson, who missed only one game in three seasons as a Seahawk, is not worth $6.5 million this year, how is Patrick Kerney, who has played only 32 games in the last three seasons, worth $7 million?
If Ruskell wanted to gain some salary-cap space, he should have gone to Kerney, who is due $4 million in salary and a $3 million roster bonus (which probably already has been paid) and will count $10 million against the cap this year.
Ruskell made a huge gamble when he guaranteed Kerney $18 million in a six-year, $37.5 million deal in 2007, when Kerney was coming off a chest injury that had limited him to seven games with Atlanta in 2006.
If Kerney fails to come back from his current shoulder problem, which cost him seven games last season, that deal will have been a bust.
(Yes, Kerney made the Pro Bowl in 2007, but nine of his 14.5 sacks came in a four-game span, and he disappeared in bad losses to Carolina and Atlanta at the end of that season.)
Bottom line: If Peterson wasn't worth $6.5 million this year, there's no way Kerney is worth $7 million.
For more on the Seattle sports scene, check out http://outsidethepressbox.com/.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?