Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Hutch's contract info


bigbadwolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

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????  :D

 

1366696[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Right, but if guaranteeing the contract for a player of this caliber is not a difficult decision, why would it be a deterrant for the Seahawks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Right, but if guaranteeing the contract for a player of this caliber is not a difficult decision, why would it be a deterrant for the Seahawks?

 

1366703[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Because if he becomes unable to play for any reason, that's almost $50 Million down the drain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but if guaranteeing the contract for a player of this caliber is not a difficult decision, why would it be a deterrant for the Seahawks?

 

1366703[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Becuase teams just don't do it anymore. It is just one more thing for them to ponder.

 

I don't the the Hawks would match the money anyway, not after the SA signing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because if he becomes unable to play for any reason, that's almost $50 Million down the drain.

 

1366711[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Right, but then it's also a bad decision for MIN. There is no way Hutch stays their highest paid player for the next 7 years. That's why I was questioning if it was idiotic for MIN to take this route, as it's a trap for them as well.

Edited by Bonehand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but then it's also a bad decision for MIN. There is no way Hutch stays their highest paid player for the next 7 years. That's why I was questioning if it was idiotic for MIN to take this route, as it's a trap for them as well.

 

1366747[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Oh I see what you're saying now.

 

Maybe it refers only to being the highest paid "at time of signing" or something like that. Not sure. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but then it's also a bad decision for MIN. There is no way Hutch stays their highest paid player for the next 7 years. That's why I was questioning if it was idiotic for MIN to take this route, as it's a trap for them as well.

 

1366747[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe they are the new Redskins, spending more than the cap really allows. If they are they are exoecting a new stadium and spending accordingly imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seahawks | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:12:40 -0800

 

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. Seahawks OT Walter Jones averages $7.5 million a season and Hutchinson's contract will average $7 million a season. If the Seahawks decide to match the offer, they would have to figure out a way to squeeze his over $13 million salary figure into their cap and would guarantee the rest of his $50 million contract, which would make it the richest cash contract in NFL history by $15 million.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just some points to clear up about the whole "poison pill" clause in the Hutchinson contract. They are saying that the entire contract becomes guaranteed if Hutchinson is not the highest paid Lineman on the team (not player, just lineman). I don't think it is spelled out what that means in terms of whether highest paid means total dollars in the contract, or average per year, etc.

 

It sounds like none of that will matter though... if the clause exists (which hasn't been confirmed yet) then Seattle is confident that a Judge or an Arbitrator would rule in their favor since the clause would not be the same for all teams involved. The way it was explained (by a caller this morning on KFAN) is that it would be similar to writing a clause that said if Hutchinson goes to any team with a bird for a mascot he would be paid double. Obviously this would not affect the Vikings at all, but would force the Seahawks to pay twice as much. It's the same terms for each team, but it obviously is written to penalize only certain teams. An arbitrator would see that and throw out the clause.

 

But, even if that "poison pill" would be thrown out (or maybe it doesn't even exist) it will still be very difficult for Seattle to match the dollar amount that the Vikings have offered. Not impossible, just difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information