Avernus Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 (edited) They didn't sign him to join the committee... He is the new Westbrook 1365485[/snapback] so if Onterrio comes back and looks like he did before last season...they're just gonna let him sit? edit:this is Childress we are talking about...an AR protege....there will be RBBC...don't get it twisted.. Edited March 12, 2006 by Avernus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 so if Onterrio comes back and looks like he did before last season...they're just gonna let him sit? edit:this is Childress we are talking about...an AR protege....there will be RBBC...don't get it twisted.. 1365491[/snapback] AR.... help me out here Ave man.... AR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 AR.... help me out here Ave man.... AR? 1365495[/snapback] ahaha Andy Reid... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 ahaha Andy Reid... 1365496[/snapback] Well, if Taylor turns into Westbrook II, that'll be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Well, if Taylor turns into Westbrook II, that'll be fine. 1365546[/snapback] the last time the Eagles had someone comparable to Moore and Smith, we saw a 3 headed monster... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 When is the last time the words "Vikings" and "signed to a hugh deal" have been used in the same story? Now, who is Hutch going to be protecting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyalboyd Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 When is the last time the words "Vikings" and "signed to a hugh deal" have been used in the same story? Now, who is Hutch going to be protecting? 1365561[/snapback] That's the question of the hour. Who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 That's the question of the hour. Who? 1365568[/snapback] Cutler perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecerwin Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Interesting that so much of the money is paid out in the first year. They structured it in such a way that Seattle COULDN'T match it because of Alexander's contract. Seattle can blame Alexander for taking such a "big peice of the pie" that they couldn't retain his awesome line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 I actually started to like Alexander until he screwed over the chance the keep Hutch... I hope Alexander gets injured... selfish piece of $hit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 (edited) Interesting that so much of the money is paid out in the first year. They structured it in such a way that Seattle COULDN'T match it because of Alexander's contract. Seattle can blame Alexander for taking such a "big peice of the pie" that they couldn't retain his awesome line. 1365959[/snapback] I had no problem with Alexander's contract (though I would rather have Edge with the contract he got from Arizona) and its no secret that I am not a fan of Alexander's. Even if the Hawks hadn't signed Alexander already, I don't think they are spending that much for a guard. Now JJ and Manuel I am a little more ticked about. It really suprises me that Alexander is the ONLY contract they got done before free agency started. If they really did have the club house atmosphere they were claming, these guys should have been lining up to sign contracts coming off the Super Bowl year. Makes me kind of wonder how they all really feel about Alexander (despite what they all say.) Edited March 13, 2006 by NoSupe4You Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehand Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Interesting that so much of the money is paid out in the first year. They structured it in such a way that Seattle COULDN'T match it because of Alexander's contract. Seattle can blame Alexander for taking such a "big peice of the pie" that they couldn't retain his awesome line. 1365959[/snapback] Incorrect. From Danny O'Neil, Tacoma News Tribune this AM: "Seattle has the salary-cap room to match the offer to Hutchinson if it chooses. The Seahawks are currently about $17 million below the salary cap, but that total doesn't include the more than $6 million currently allotted to Hutchinson as the transition player. If the Vikings' offer results in a cap hit of $10 million, Seattle would still have more than $13 million in salary-cap room if it matched the offer and retained Hutchinson." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 HUTCHINSON OFFER HAS MAJOR POISON PILL A league source tells us that the offer sheet signed by Seahawks guard Steve Hutchinson with the Minnesota Vikings contains a poison pill of unprecedented magnitude and significance, which is aimed at preventing Seattle from exercising its right to match the deal, pursuant to the rules applicable to transition players. Apart from a 2006 cap number that exceeds $13 million, the offer sheet contains a provision that makes the entire deal guaranteed if Hutchinson at any point becomes anything other than the highest paid player on the team. From Seattle's perspective, that's a big problem, in light of the Walter Jones contract. If the Seahawks match, Hutchinson's deal could indeed become fully guaranteed from day one. The Seahawks could attempt to match the offer and exclude the poison pill provision, taking the position that it is not a "Principal Term" of the deal. Under Article XX, Section 5 of the CBA, only the "Principal Terms" must be matched. So what are "Principle Terms"? Under Article XIX, Section 3(e)(ii) of the CBA, "Principle Terms" include "[a]ny modifications of and additions to the terms contained in the NFL Player Contract . . . that relate to non-compensation terms (including guarantees, no-cut, and no-trade provisions)." Applying the language literally, the poison pill "relates to" a guarantee because it sets forth a specific circumstance in which the specified compensation will become guaranteed. There's a chance that the Seahawks will attempt to fashion an argument that the trigger for the guarantee violates the spirit of the CBA by placing an artificial limit on the money that can be paid to other players. But, in reality, it doesn't -- it merely provides the player who ultimately is not the highest paid player a guaranteed contract. Though the issue ultimately might land before an arbitrator or a special master, we think that the Vikings will prevail on this one. We're also told that the Seahawks are livid at Hutchinson and agent Tom Condon with this development. It's one thing, as they see it, for a guy to get the best offer he can on the open market. It's another thing to huddle with the new team in an effort to come up with an offer that the Seahawks can't or won't be able to match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 They didn't sign him to join the committee... He is the new Westbrook 1365485[/snapback] Except Westbrook has a Top 5 QB in front of him to keep teams honest, and Chester Taylor has....uh.....hmmm...who is that again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehand Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 HUTCHINSON OFFER HAS MAJOR POISON PILL 1366596[/snapback] Hey Billy, got a source for this article? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 It was emailed to me from a buddy. I asked him the same question, says he got it off PFT and heard the same thing on KFAN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 I also heard it on KFAN on the way into work this morning... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 HUTCHINSON OFFER HAS MAJOR POISON PILL We're also told that the Seahawks are livid at Hutchinson and agent Tom Condon with this development. It's one thing, as they see it, for a guy to get the best offer he can on the open market. It's another thing to huddle with the new team in an effort to come up with an offer that the Seahawks can't or won't be able to match. 1366596[/snapback] What happened to "I want to come back to the Seahawks." It is one thing to try and maximize your earnings, but he would have gotten other offers, and probably at close to this one. To jump on an offer that quick that pretty much eliminates your old team from resigning you (even if they wanted to pay you the money) is pretty f'd up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehand Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 It was emailed to me from a buddy. I asked him the same question, says he got it off PFT and heard the same thing on KFAN. 1366611[/snapback] Yep, looks like ProFootball Talk. If valid, this could make things tough for the Hawks, although worst case, guaranteeing a long term contract for such a young pro-bowl caliber player may not be as hard a decision as it looks at first glance. FWIW, Mike Sando just addressed this in his blog, stating that: "I do not think such poison pills are permissible under the CBA. We shall see." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VikesGuy Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 I am not sure why this is such a big deal. Hutch has been in the league for 5 years. A good lineman is going to play 12+ years in the league. So you are just giving him a guaranteed contract. Big deal I guess i am just old school where all legal contracts should be guaranteed anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehand Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 I am not sure why this is such a big deal. Hutch has been in the league for 5 years. A good lineman is going to play 12+ years in the league. So you are just giving him a guaranteed contract. Big deal I guess i am just old school where all legal contracts should be guaranteed anyway. 1366648[/snapback] Isn't it idiotic from the Vikings standpoint to guarantee that your highest paid player is a GUARD? I understand that they are trying to price Seattle out of the Market, but it almost sounds foolish to me, since it's hard to make the argument that Left Guard is the most important position on a football team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Isn't it idiotic from the Vikings standpoint to guarantee that your highest paid player is a GUARD? I understand that they are trying to price Seattle out of the Market, but it almost sounds foolish to me, since it's hard to make the argument that Left Guard is the most important position on a football team. 1366673[/snapback] "Left Guards Win Championships" - V. Lombardi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehand Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 "Left Guards Win Championships" - V. Lombardi 1366681[/snapback] :doah: I forgot that rule. Thanks for setting me straight, AG! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VikesGuy Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Isn't it idiotic from the Vikings standpoint to guarantee that your highest paid player is a GUARD? I understand that they are trying to price Seattle out of the Market, but it almost sounds foolish to me, since it's hard to make the argument that Left Guard is the most important position on a football team. 1366673[/snapback] Maybe i am reading it wrong, but if he isn't the highest played player. His contract just becomes guarenteed. It doesn't say that he WILL be the highest played player. Maybe I am wrong???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Maybe i am reading it wrong, but if he isn't the highest played player. His contract just becomes guarenteed. It doesn't say that he WILL be the highest played player. Maybe I am wrong???? 1366696[/snapback] Thats exactly what I am reading...not that he becomes highest paid, just guaranteed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.