Seahawks Insider

Source: Clemons, Hawks still talking

Post by Eric Williams on June 16, 2012 at 7:28 pm with 32 Comments »
June 16, 2012 7:28 pm
Seattle Seahawks defensive end Chris Clemons (91) pursues Arizona Cardinals quarterback John Skelton during the first half of an football game Sunday, Jan. 1, 2012, in Tempe, Ariz. (AP Photo/Paul Connors)

According to Len Pasquarelli of the Sports Xchange, Seattle Seahawks defensive end Chris Clemons has turned down a three-year, $18 million extension from the team, and intends to play out the end of his contract this season and become an unrestricted free agent in 2013.

Clemons, who turns 31 on Oct. 30, is in the final year of his contract that will pay him $4 million in base salary in 2012. He led Seattle in sacks the past two seasons, with 11 sacks each year.

According to the report, the Seahawks offered Clemons a new, three-year contract through 2014 that would raise this year’s compensation to $8 million, and add two more years, including a base salary of $4.5 million in 2013 and $5.5 million in 2014.

However, a club source close to the situation says that contrary to the report, the Seahawks have not received a formal rejection on any deal, and the two sides continue to negotiate.

This new bit of information is consistent with what Seattle head coach Pete Carroll had to say about the situation on Tuesday, when Clemons failed to show up for mandatory minicamp. Clemons will be fined $73,000 for staying home this week, and also will lose a $100,000 workout bonus.

Along with the mandatory minicamp, Clemons missed most of Seattle’s organized team activities (OTAs).

Clemons’ agent Donal Henderson did not immediately return a phone message left by The News Tribune.

“We’ve had open communications with the agent and with Chris,” Carroll said this week. “And we feel like everything’s been on the up and up and very amicable and all that. So it continues to be one of our priorities and we’d love to get him back.”

It’s been speculated that Clemons is upset that Seattle drafted his future replacement in selecting West Virginia speedy pass rusher Bruce Irvin with the team’s No. 15 overall pick in this year’s draft.

However, Seattle’s is looking to improve a pass rush that ranked tied for 19th overall in the league with just 33 sacks in 2011, and Carroll believes that the pairing of Irvin and Clemons coming off the edge in passing situations could help boost his team’s sack numbers this season.

“He’s got another year on his contract, so we’re talking about future potential stuff. That’s something we’ve had our eye on for some time with him. He’s done a very good job for us for the first couple years with us, and we’re real pleased with his play and his work habits.”

NFL free agency
Leave a comment Comments → 32
  1. Seeing that the last year is higher than year 2 you can pretty much guess they are not planning on him being around then. That’s money “not Likely to be earned”

  2. JazBadAzz says:

    The Prestige was a real good movie!

  3. Dukeshire says:

    Clem’s age puts him in an awkward situation. Not to mention he’s clearly not the future at RDE here in Seattle, with Irvin being drafted. If he doesn’t like Seattle’s current offer, he ought to come in and have a career year in ’12 and hope for the. Est on the open market. Either way, he’s unlikely to get more than a 3 year deal then. Personally, I just can’t imagine his value being higher elsewhere. That is, he’s scheme specific, and Seattle is perhaps he only one he can really thrive in.

  4. I’m thinking he’ll be signed by mid-next week. I think they’re a lot closer than what’s written hear. It may simple come down to how much is guarenteed. And frankly I think they could guarentee all of next year’s offer and he’d likely sign. He’s not going to do a bunch better on the OM, and 4.5 guarenteed is pretty damn good for a 32 yr old that hasn;t made a bunch of pro bowls.

  5. DisplacedSeahawkFan says:

    I know it’s relative to how much money they make, but to turn your nose up at $173,000 is ridiculous. That’s more than a lot of people make in 3, or 4, years. It almost makes me mad. Part of me hopes that Clemons re-sings; another part of me, however, says to let him go after this season. Seattle could probably find someone as good as Clemons in free agency, or the draft. I mean, after all, after this season Clemons would be 32–one would think at that age his best playing days are behind him.

  6. shoehawks says:

    A player on this team that is doesn’t want to have to compete for his job?! Show him the door.

  7. wabubba67 says:

    If true, Clemons turning down a three year, $18 million dollar extension, isn’t a real bright move on his part.

    His salary would double this year to $8 million, and it’s still likely that the team would choose not to bring him back in 2013 at $4.5 million (thereby making him a free agent). If the team did bring him back in 2013, he would still be getting over a 50% pay increase over the two years. Taking the contract would also protect against injury (at DE not an improbable scenerio).

    Instead, by playing out his current deal, Clemons would (in essence) lose $4 million this year and hit the open market (hopefully healthy) one year later as a nearly 32 year old.

    If I’m his agent, I jump across the table and sign the deal before they pull it away. As a fan, I hope he plays out the current deal so that they team will have more money to spend elsewhere.

  8. shoehawks says:

    I hope that the negotiations truly do continue – and I hope that Clemons wants to be a part of this team – but the offer that was quoted sounds like it is more than fair.

  9. ryanryan says:

    it’d be nice not to head into next years draft NEEDING another DE – of course if a good one falls to us at 32 (please be 32 NOT by way of trading down) we should grab him up.

    i hope they come to an agreement. he is valuable to the hawks, and barring injury will be so for at least this year and the next.

    all of that was rhetoric

  10. ryanryan says:

    happy father’s day everyone, its already midnight here in GA…time to sleep.

  11. bbnate420 says:

    Wabubba67, this new offer would most likely NOT be guaranteed past 2012 so, how is it insurance for him in case he gets injured? Insurance for if he is injured before the start of the 2012 regular season I guess. You even elude to this in your post when you suggest that they likely will cut him before 2013 even if he signs the deal, which is incorrect most likely. The only way they cut him before 2013 in this scenario is if he had a major injury or plays TERRIBLE in 2012. 4.5 mil for a good pass rusher is a bargain.

    P.S. You don’t have to go into witness protection. It’s just a dialogue and opinions man!

  12. Dukeshire says:

    He never said it would be guaranteed. But should he sign the extension, there is every reason to believe he’d play this season thereby doubling his base salary for the year.

  13. Makes no sense that Clem would walk away from that deal. I’m glad Schneider showed Clem the money, and I have to think they’re just working out the details before he takes it. A good deal for him and the team.

  14. Could someone show a schematic of the D with both Clem and Irwin on the field?

  15. DreadHawks says:

    What bothers me about the whole thing is it says he was upset that they drafted Irvin. Huh? Didn’t he know our pass rush wasn’t good enough last season?? This tells that it’s all about Chris Clemons. I don’t want that in our house! I think we have something special breweing this year I would love for him to be part of it.

  16. RDPoulsbo says:

    Given it’s an extension and doubles his salary this year when the team really wouldn’t have to give it to him, I’d guess would mean he’d be a lock for the team in 2013 as well. That might be where the hangup lies. If he takes the deal, he gets almost assuredly $12.5 mil for the next 2 years, but at 33 when there might be a good chance of cutting him, he’s not going to get much from any other team. There’s a decent chance he could get more than $8.5 mil in FA next year if he plays decently this year given he has low mileage for his age.

    It seems it’s a similar situation with Hass in giving him more money up front or guarantees beyond this and next season.

  17. OregonHawk says:

    Irvan – Jones – Mebane – Clem = obvious passing downs

  18. bird_spit says:

    Always compete! F the contract is near accurate, then it seems to be a fair offer. Besides, what is his alternative plan. He is under contract.

    I’m all for him sending the message, but really at the end of the day, he should want to play.

  19. If the second year was 4.5 and the third 5.5, it pretty much says Seattle thinks his production is likely to drop drastically in 2013 and they just want him as an option. The third year is garbage, they want an easy out and that money isnt likely to ever be paid to Clemons.

    So it makes more sense that Clemons told them no thanks. If they offered 8 and 6 and 4, that would be plenty, but perhaps too much.

    He’s insane if he thinks he’ll get 8.5 guaranteed with another team next year. And he’d have to get 8.7 to make up for what he turned down and his lost workout bonus and minicamp fines…Still doesnt make sense.

    Then again, since tampering is rampant, perhaps other teams are talking with the agent and are trying to feign interest to ensure Seattle pays too much for him…

    Conspiracy, I know…but isnt that what the NFL is all about…

  20. Dukeshire says:

    Oregonhawk- flip flop Bane and Jones. Should they go with that, Jones would be 3-tech.

  21. OregonHawk says:

    Ty Duke, & I misspelled Irvin

  22. The Seahawks basically offered Clemons a 2 year, $14 million extension with a mere $4 million guaranteed. If he somehow puts together another double digit sack season, I would imagine another team would easily offer him $15 million in guaranteed money.

    I would also agree that scheme and playing the Rams (6.5 of his 22 sacks in 2010-2011) have benefited him. But this isn’t a Darryl Tapp situation (who also fattened up his numbers against the Rams), Clemons does have decent pass rush ability – it’s just in the second tier and below the elite level. Clemons was also good against the run last year.

    He is basically risking $4 million by turning down the Seahawks offer and nothing more. His upside in turning this down is far more than his downside and what the Seahawks offered him ($4m) does not dwarf what he has already made the past few years so it is not “life altering.”

    In a league that completely emphasizes stopping the pass, he made the right move.

  23. RDPoulsbo says:

    It’s easy to be mad at him for missing minicamp over a contract dispute, which I am. But if you look at his situation starting with 2013, it makes sense for him to decline this offer. After Pierre-Paul and Aldon Smith changed how teams look at undersized pass rushers around the league, there’s going to be money for him after this year. He was a little used reserve for more than half of his NFL career, so he has low miles in spite of his age.

  24. Hammajamma says:

    Agree with Pabs here-probably the best move for him. The FO should front load a decent guarantee and backload the salary. Give him a ten million cap hit over two years. The Wake deal was stupid, and I don’t think Clem would really want to risk playing for a FA contract next at his age. This is doable.

  25. wabubba67 says:

    Accepting this deal, means that Clemons (at worst) would receive a pay raise of over 50% for 2012 and 2013. That’s if the team keeps him in 2013. If not, he becomes a free agent after having had his salary double in 2012.

    Considering the possibility of injury and the decline due to age in 2012, I think he’s foolish for walking away from the deal.

    At nearly 32 entering the 2013 season, he will not be seeing a large guaranteed signing bonus from any other team in the free agency market.

  26. shorty10 says:

    I’d let Clemons walk at the end of the season. He’s going to play like hell in this, his contract year. He gets big bucks to go elsewhere as a 32 year old scheme player. Besides, Irvin will be ready to take his job next year, full time.

  27. bbnate420 says:

    Duke, he didn’t EXPLICiTLY say it would be guaranteed but, he ELUDED to that by saying that, “Taking the contract would also protect against injury”. If the contract wasn’t guaranteed, how exactly would it protect against injury? Maybe you should read the comments a little more thoroughly before responding next time.
    ; )

  28. wabubba67 says:

    It protects against injury by paying him an additional $4 million this year rather than playing out the contract….which would put him at risk for injury at a much lower price.

  29. Dukeshire says:

    bbnate420 – If he signs the deal and gets injured, they have to IR him. You cannot release or cut players on IR, so he would collect that year’s salary in full. Perhaps you ought to familiarize yourself with the CBA before you advise others.

  30. bbnate420 says:

    wabubba67, that means he would make more money this year if injured AFTER the start of the season, unless the first year of the new deal would be guaranteed which none of us have any idea whether it would be or not, which I already agreed was the case. But I assumed that you meant the longer term deal would protect him in the future, as in past 2012, in case of injury. I think most people would assume this is what you meant. I don’t think the extra money necessarily protects him against injury, unless Clemons has blown all of his other money already and needs the extra 4 mil to set him up.

    Duke, I don’t think you’re correct unless the first year of the new deal would be guaranteed, which we don’t know. We don’t really know if the Seahawks have for sure made him an offer. So maybe you shouldn’t make FALSE assumptions buddy! ; )

  31. Dukeshire says:

    I’m not assuming anything. Familiarize yourself with the CBA and we can revisit this.

  32. bbnate420 says:

    I ALREADY was and just looked at it again. Unless the money is GUARANTEED in the first year of the new deal, which as I stated before we DO NOT know, then the new deal WOULD NOT GUARANTEE ANYTHING that the old one did not, besides more money in the event he was hurt DURING the season. If a player is hurt BEFORE the first game of the season, the team can cut them and come to an injury settlement with them. If he was on the roster before the first game and is on the roster for the first game then his contract is guaranteed for the season, i.e. if the player goes on IR they are still paid. Additionally, if the player is injured during the season and cannot play the next season, assuming they have a club-authorized surgery and follow club mandated rehabilitation, then they are eligible for up to 50 % of their salary for the season with a maximum of 1 mil.

    I think it is YOU that needs to read the CBA but, feel free to link anything if you still believe I am incorrect!

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