Seahawks Insider

Agent: Hawks tender DT Brandon Mebane

Post by Eric Williams on March 1, 2011 at 12:06 pm with 27 Comments »
March 1, 2011 12:06 pm

According to his agent, the Seattle Seahawks have placed an original round tender on defensive tackle Brandon Mebane.

The Seahawks have not confirmed the restricted tender designation had been placed on the Cal product.

So what does that mean? Well, that’s yet to be determined with the current Collective Bargaining Agreement set to expire at midnight Eastern Time on Thursday.

A third-round selection out of California, Mebane originally signed a four-year deal worth nearly $3 million. Mebane has been a four-year starter for Seattle, missing five games in four seasons and averaging 40 tackles and 2.5 sacks a season.

According to Brian McIntyre, under the current agreement an original round tender for a player with four accrued seasons like Mebane carries a $1.275 million, non-guaranteed base salary in 2011.

So if another team signs Mebane to an offer sheet, and Seattle decides not to match it, the Seahawks would receive a third-round pick as compensation.

However, there’s still some uncertainty that Mebane would be a restricted free agent under the new CBA, once the players and owners reach a new agreement. There’s a chance he could become an unrestricted free agent and allowed to fully go out and test the market.

So far Mebane has received a lot of interest from other teams, so under the current scenario interested teams would likely be willing to give up a third-round pick to receive Mebane’s services.

So the restricted tender provides some protection for Seattle, and shows they would like Mebane to return. Seattle general manager John Schneider said talks have gone well with Mebane’s representation, and that he considers the Cal product one of the team’s core players.

Brandon Mebane’s agent Chuck Price echoed those sentiments, saying talks have been constructive, and although they would like to get a long-term deal worked out before the current CBA ends on Friday, he understands the uncertainty of what the new rules will be under new CBA makes it tough to get something done at this time.

However, Price said he’s hopeful the two sides will continue to work toward a long-term agreement getting done this week.

“They made it clear that they would like Brandon to stay,” Price said. “And Brandon has made it clear that he’d like to be there. So we’re really working hard to keep Brandon there.”

Categories:
Player movement
Leave a comment Comments → 27
  1. HawkfaninMT says:

    So he wants to stay… We want him here… So why no long term deal? I can’t imagine the Hawks don’t see him in their plans for the next 5-6 years, so why not pay the man? I wonder what the sticking point is? Number of years, or amount of money, and how far apart they are?

  2. Are players actual free agents right now? Can they talk to other teams at this point? Not sure how things are working this year.

    My guess, is he is asking high they are offering lower. and nobody wants to budge right now based on the potential Lock out.

    This at least shows him they want him back. I hope this all works out in the end.

  3. chuck_easton says:

    It means just what it sounds like. They want him, he wants to be back.

    He isn’t worth the 11 million per season if he were franchised but everyone knows he’s worth more than the 1.275 per season tender.

    This just lets everyone else know that he’s in the mix. It also is security that if the RFA is upheld and Mebane gets an offer from another team we either match or we get a 3rd round draft pick (in 2012).

    And xcman, only players that are released outright are FA’s now. No player is an FA until after the 3rd of March. By that time either there’s a new CBA or there’s a lockout and no team can talk to any player. That is why it isn’t getting done.

    And I will go on record as I am dead set against the ‘just pay the man’ argument. That is how you end up with players like Curry that are untradeable or Houshmanzahdah who have to be cut and carried on the books at 8 million.

  4. If we’ve learned anything the past few years from Ruskell, there is always a team out there willing to overpay for a solid player like Mebane. The fact that he’s still young and has been mostly healthy all these years, I think we can wish him farewell.

    On the brighter side, sounds like we may have to a 3rd-rounder to look forward to, and this draft is deep with Defensive Linemen.

    Is there are 3rd round prospect that someone would trade for Mebane? Lower salary, younger, perhaps more upside?

    Let’s hope it’s a high 3rd – rounder.

  5. Oops, guess it would be a 2012 3rd rounder. This will leave us a bit light-handed on the d-line unless we can replace him somehow.

    Why couldn’t they have tendered him as a 2nd rounder? Wouldn’t the salary be more inline with what he’s worth?

  6. They don’t really want him to return if they gave him a mere 3rd round tender.

  7. If both sides are being honest (no reason to believe they aren’t) there’s no reason Mebane shouldn’t be resigned by the end of the week.

    He may not be the Pro Bowl 3-tech some envisioned, but he’s a great run stuffer and plays a large role in the success of guys behind him like Lofa and our smallish free safety (whom I love).

    If there were a Pro Bowl for run stuffing defensive linemen, he’d make it.

  8. BK, gotta hope your speculation is correct…. strong Mebane supporter here….. He’s a key (pls return) guy to keep us ‘competitive’ again next year…. One of the ‘consistent’ guys we need ……. so often, we were unsure what team would show up week after week this past year… Even with the new tougher schedule(on paper), we want to get up to the next level this year…. Key is, we want to be competitive again at a higher level, and have a chance every week…. Mebane is part of that….

  9. Goofy – I actually don’t think it will happen (but hope it will). I just said that I don’t think there’s any reason it shouldn’t.

    If we’re willing to trade Josh Wilson for a 5th round pick, then I wouldn’t totally be surprised if we allowed Mebane to leave for a 3rd rounder (then Heater is probably on the block for a low pick too).

  10. Obviously a wierd football time… I can’t help but feel that all teams will not come out of this “negotiation period” on an equal basis…. like playing roulette….

  11. Here’s another perspective on the Josh Wilson trade…. which ‘I” didn’t really favor at the time…….
    If he were with us in the playoff’s, would we have won our playoff game? Would he have made that much of a difference????
    I kinda think not….. Just a thought….

  12. Would Wilson have been on the field over Babs in the Chicago game when Babs dropped the INT for a TD the other way (along with the momentum changing)? I don’t know, but could/would that play have made a difference? I think so.

    Should we trade John Carlson or Marshawn Lynch for a 5th round pick in 2013 because we don’t think we’re going to realistically win the Super Bowl this upcoming season (especially if we start Locker, Ponder, or whoever)?

    Just a thought — don’t trade good, young players for nothing (or 5th round picks). We all know that Wilson would sign somewhere else (if we chose not to resign him) and we’d get a comp. 5th round pick back in 2012.

    Think of it this way… the Ravens gave us a 5th round pick for Wilson… but if they choose not to resign him this off-season, they are pretty much guaranteed to get a 4th or 5th round comp. pick from the NFL if he leaves and goes to another team. How’s that for a “good” trade?

    Then again, who knows what the rules are anymore. All I know is that if you draft a player in the 2nd round, and he’s everything you hoped he’d be, and he’s still just 25 years old… it really makes no sense to trade him for a 5th rounder. Does it?

    I understand (and even agree) with the concept of not drafting midget CBs. However, in the nickel, Wilson was GREAT in the slot. For the most part, he didn’t need to be 6 feet tall because many of those routes aren’t jump balls down the field. He was a great blitzer from that position and a great cover corner as the nickel for what he was being asked to do (not a great overall CB, I’m not saying that, but GREAT in the role, an important role by the way) in smaller spaces where his quickness was useful… I get so mad at this stupid trade ever time I think of it!

  13. Dukeshire says:

    pabuwal – So what, you think they should have 1st and 3rd(ed) him? This is a great move by the ‘Hawks. They have no 3rd, which no they are ensured of either recouping or re-signing an important player. If they don’t want him to “return” they’re now in a position to replace him. Perfect.

  14. Dukeshire says:

    IBGoofy – Actually, I think of it this way; trading Wilson creates another need moving forward, WHILE weakening last year’s team. Would he have made a difference in the playoff game vs the Bears? Who knows? Probably not. But they are now in need of replacing Jennings (who we all knew was on his way out prior to the trade. Or at least we should have known after watching his play decline for the past 2 seasons) which if Wilson were still here, would not be as pressing an issue.

  15. Dukeshire says:

    It’s discouraging (at least for those who want him to re-sign) but let’s not read too much into that. CBA expiring or no, this type of (dis)information comes out all the time only to have a deal reached. I’d take that report with a grain of salt.

  16. I was thinking today that a Hasselbeck/Ponder “marriage” might be a good idea. Ponder can sit and watch from a vet for a year or two. Plus, he’s taken a bit of a beating so him having a year to sit and watch might be good for him physically as well. It’d be a great experience for him mentally and physically. We’ll see…

  17. Great comments guys on the Wilson scenario… Trying to make the point that : “perhaps we’re still equal”… We can expect Jennings was going to be gone regardless…. yes? If our first year of observation is any proof, we know this is a mg’t team that will continue to move the prior regime players out…. I know, I know BK, this is a hot discussion item for you.. !!! LOL! Just sayin’, I’m not so sure we’re still not at least ‘even’ at this point…..

    On the Hass signing, I sure want him back… I like the guy, on and off the field…. always have…..

    Makes ya wonder if signing him now or later is the better deal…. Either way stablizes us, but who knows, and if we lose him? It really might be time to make a change… we get to criticize, after the fact, regardless….

  18. I heard a report that LW agreed “in Principle” to a new 4 year deal with the hawks. Anyone heard more about that?

    That would be a good step in the right direction.

  19. Yeah. The Wilson topic really gets me fired up. A great nickel back (which is pretty much a starter in the NFL today) given away for some crap 5th round pick. Add to that and it’s pretty well known that we would have taken Trent (I suck) Williams at #6 if Okung had gone to Washington at #4 last year and I am not a blind supporter of the new regime. They are off to a good start, but they don’t deserve blind loyalty until they deliver a Lombardi. Not everyone is perfect, I understand that, they have done more right than wrong, they can’t be expected to right the ship in one year, and we all are definitely rooting for them to do it sooner rather than later.

  20. We need to get Mebane, Matt & Mare’s deals done.

  21. Soggybuc says:

    Willing to bet if anything it the guaranteed moneys if anything.

  22. At least the current regime is not making the team have two kickers on the roster. What happened to Cotu anyway?

    For a first year program these guys did well. Maybe they didn’t like Wilson’s attitude.

    I don’t think we have seen enough of Carroll and Schneider to really make informed judgements. This year will be the key. How they handle Matt and Mebane will say a lot.

    Don’t write off Carlson yet. If we take good care of the offensive line things will come together. If Cable can get Gallery and anybody else he likes in free agency plus a high draft pick he can put together a killer o-line. Matt doesn’t get hurt. Our run game comes back. The defense spends less time on the field.

  23. maddog12 says:

    That roto world report is a bummer. We won’t overpay him…but somebody else will pay more….alot more. This will happen just so Seahawks are deprived of our starting qb and have to find a knew one.

    We have to hope something breaks the Hawks way and he signs. Or CBJ is able to improve significantly.

    Then of course Mr. Manning in Indy has not signed yet either.

  24. You’re right. This year will be a key for them and it’s been made even harder without having a 3rd round pick. Of course, if that 3rd round pick turns out like EJ Wilson, who we drafted in the 4th round last year, it won’t matter anyway because we already released him. And if they are planning to take another Trent Williams, lets hope that some dumb team in front of us takes him before he gets to us. Still, we can’t complain much b/c last years draft may be giving us 6 impact players before it’s all said and done (Okung, ET, Tate, Chancellor, Davis, Thurmond) and that’s pretty damn good and rare. That’s exactly how franchises get turned around. But we’re going to be held hostage until the QB position gets solidified. Ideally, we resign Matt AND have a good, young gun fall to us in the first couple of rounds. It’s really not going to matter how good the entire team is if we’ve got crappy QB play.

  25. Dukeshire says:

    A judge has ruled that the owners will not have access tot he $4 billion TV revenue during a lockout. This is good news for the Player’s Union. Although I’m sure the owners will appeal the ruling, in a perfect world this will motivate the owners to reach a new deal before tomorrow’s deadline.

    In his ruling, the judge said; “The record shows that the NFL undertook contract renegotiations to advance its own interests and harm the interests of the players,”

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6172379

  26. Dukeshire says:

    And for those who feel the players are being greedy, how about this from the ruling…

    “… consistently characterized gaining control over labor as a short-term objective and maximizing revenue as a long-term objective … advancing its negotiating position at the expense of using best efforts to maximize total revenues for the joint benefit of the NFL and the Players.”

    They owners violated their own commitment to the players (union) to do everything possible to maximize revenue. They held up the network(s) to include guaranteed money should there be a lockout, while agreeing to a “smaller” figure to do so. Pretty bad…

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0