The blinding idiocy of John Clayton's suggestion that the Seahawks may be interested in Michael Vick can be dismissed without further comment.
The more interesting question is this: Why would ANY team want Michael Vick?
I've got no problem with Vick's reinstatement, but I also have a hard time fathoming why any team would be interested in this schmuck. On top of the maelstrom of bad publicity signing Vick would bring, on top of the negative reaction of your fan base, there's another very compelling argument against signing Vick...
He's a pretty average quarterback.
It would be one thing if this was Joe Montana stepping out of jail at age 29; then maybe I could see a team taking a chance on the guy. There was a time when his natural athletic ability made him a unique threat, but does anyone really think that it'll be 2004-vintage Vick out on the field this fall? This is a guy who has absorbed 187 sacks over his career, and is coming off two entire seasons of inactivity.
If you strip away the superlative skills as a runner, Vick is nothing special as a QB, with a 75.7 career passer rating. That sandwiches him between Stan Humphries and Wade Wilson on the all-time list. Not exactly impressive, huh?
You might say a team could take him on as a "wildcat" threat, but does the risk/reward equation work out for any NFL team at this point? For a team to take a chance on Vick, he'd have to be the last, key piece to the championship puzzle. There's nothing about him as a person or as a player that fits that description.
Have fun in the UFL, Mike.