Outshined Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Kevin Seifert, Star Tribune Last update: March 20, 2006 – 1:29 PM Printer friendly E-mail this story Vikings Seahawks maneuver to keep guard out of Vikings' hands The Seattle Seahawks produced a surprise this morning during a hearing to determine the future of offensive lineman Steve Hutchinson, but the NFL Players Association remains confident that the twist will not impact the decision of a special master. During a hearing in front of Stephen Burbank, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, the Seahawks did not argue the legality of a so-called "poison-pill" clause that would guarantee all of Hutchinson's $49 million offer sheet if he does not have the highest annual average salary of any offensive lineman on the team in 2006. Instead, the Seahawks revealed they had renegotiated the contract of left tackle Walter Jones, according to NFLPA General Counsel Richard Berthelsen, who represented Hutchinson at the hearing. Jones' contract now averages less than $7 million annually -- a move the Seahawks argued would allow them to match the offer sheet without triggering the clause. Berthelsen, however, said he argued that the Vikings' offer sheet requires Hutchinson to have the highest annual average salary in 2006 for the entire league year, which began March 11. The Seahawks apparently re-worked Hutchinson's deal within the past few days but are arguing Hutchinson only needs to be the the highest-paid offensive lineman for one day of the league year. In essence, Burbank must decide that point -- whether the Vikings' offer sheet requires Hutchinson to be the team's highest-paid lineman for part or all of the 2006 league year. Burbank is expected to announce his decision by 4 p.m. Central time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I thought they may do that or guarantee the contract. If the Vikings can manipulate contracts so can the Seahawks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 If that's the strategy of the Seahawks, then I have a lot more confidence in the Vikings' chances of landing Hutchinson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Even if it it doesn't have a direct effect, it has to go further to show the arbitrator what the spirit of the clause really is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Maybe they should try the trusty old coin flip method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 they'll rule in Seattle's favor....I'm almost positive.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I thought they may do that or guarantee the contract. If the Vikings can manipulate contracts so can the Seahawks. 1378586[/snapback] Another one of your insightful blanket comments. Make a point. What are you referring to? The Herschel Walker deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dread Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I expect this to go the Seahawk's way...Vikings always come up short when it counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Another one of your insightful blanket comments. Make a point. What are you referring to? The Herschel Walker deal? 1378631[/snapback] What the topic is about, the poison pill part of the contract, where the Vikings put in the clause that says Hutch has to be paid as the top Offenseive lineman. The Seaawks countered with restructuring the Jones contact. Using tricks like this often don't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 What the topic is about, the poison pill part of the contract, where the Vikings put in the clause that says Hutch has to be paid as the top Offenseive lineman. The Seaawks countered with restructuring the Jones contact. Using tricks like this often don't work. 1378784[/snapback] What did the Vikes do wrong? The Hawks transition tagged him, the Vikes made him an offer. Now Seattle has to match it or lose Hutch. Right? So again, I ask you, what did the Vikes do wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 According to the Tacoma News Tribune, the Seahawks added a "dummy year" to Jones' contract, changing the deal from a seven-year, $52.5 million contract to an eight-year, $53.5 million contract. The final year will be voided eventually, but for now it lowers his annual average from $7.5 million to $6.688 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 See now I don't think that will fly with an arbitrator. They should have just gone in there and argued that the "poison pill" was not a principle term, and that it in essence takes away the Seahawks right to match. Just on those simple grounds I think they would have won... but monkeying around with Jones' contract most likely won't get them anywhere. I started out today believing that there was no way that Hutchinson would end up a Viking, but the more I hear about the Seahawks strategy, the more I like our chances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 What did the Vikes do wrong? The Hawks transition tagged him, the Vikes made him an offer. Now Seattle has to match it or lose Hutch. Right? So again, I ask you, what did the Vikes do wrong? 1378796[/snapback] Wrong? They didn't do anything illegal, but by putting in the poison pill I'm afraid other teams will try and structure deals in a similar way and make it harder for teams to retain and sign players. I think it was a trick and they may regret it when teams put in similar provisions. Like "If you play for a team with purple uniforms the entire contract is guaranteed". Starting down such a road is a mistake imo. "Seattle has to match it or lose Hutch. Right?" Not necessarily. If teams keep doing I think contracts may be settled in courts and I would like to see that avoided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 What a mess. Quite simply, the Seahawks deserve to lose Hutchinson. The idea to use the transition tag on a player who would be coveted by just about every team in the league was STUPID. Even if they are able to match the Vikings' contract, there's no way they would have had to pay him that much before FA started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Who did the Seahawks put the franchise tag on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Quite simply, the Seahawks deserve to lose Hutchinson. The idea to use the transition tag on a player who would be coveted by just about every team in the league was STUPID. Even if they are able to match the Vikings' contract, there's no way they would have had to pay him that much before FA started. 1378871[/snapback] The two sides couldn't agress on Hutchinson's pricetag. The Seahawks had the option to franchise him, but chose not to, presumably to allow the market to set Hutch's value for the two sides. The Vikings made out a contract that included language with provisions such as maintaining a residence within 50 miles of Minneapolis, which makes it impossible for anyone else to match their deal. Amateurism does not prevail in the NFL, and the Vikings demonstrated that their new ownership group is still learning how the game (off the field) is played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Who did the Seahawks put the franchise tag on? 1378902[/snapback] Nobody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 The two sides couldn't agress on Hutchinson's pricetag. 1378943[/snapback] Well, yeah. That's pretty much my point. Seattle underestimated Hutchinson's value and now they have to pay the price, either literally (matching the enormous offer) or figuratively (losing him altogether). As for "amateurism", that's exactly the term I'd use to describe Ruskell's decision to use the transition tag. There's just absolutely no reason NOT to use the franchise tag. I'm certainly no Vikings fan, but at least they're being creative instead of shortsighted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Still no word by the way. There was supposed to be a ruling by 4pm CST, but so far nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 As for "amateurism", that's exactly the term I'd use to describe Ruskell's decision to use the transition tag. There's just absolutely no reason NOT to use the franchise tag. I'm certainly no Vikings fan, but at least they're being creative instead of shortsighted. 1378964[/snapback] Maybe it was a good faith maneuver to Hutchinson? "Go find out what you're worth and we'll match it". No one expected him to be paid nearly 20% more than anyone else at his position after 4 years in the league. I agree that using the franchise tag would have been to the Seahawks advantage in terms of the price they'll have to pay (literally or figuratively), but I don't necessarily think that it is/was automatically a mistake not to use it. There is creative, then there is dumb. The arbitor shall decide this apparently too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Scorp Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 The two sides couldn't agress on Hutchinson's pricetag. The Seahawks had the option to franchise him, but chose not to, presumably to allow the market to set Hutch's value for the two sides. The Vikings made out a contract that included language with provisions such as maintaining a residence within 50 miles of Minneapolis, which makes it impossible for anyone else to match their deal. Amateurism does not prevail in the NFL, and the Vikings demonstrated that their new ownership group is still learning how the game (off the field) is played. 1378943[/snapback] Right.... Bitter Hawks fan arguing with noted Viking basher about the new Vikings ownership group... I agree that amateurism does not prevail in the NFL...the Seahawks ownership should have given Hutch a decent offer instead of the "well, go out and see what other teams will give you and then we'll match that". Because that just reeks of Professionalism!!!! Which ever way this deal is decided, Hutch is the winner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Scorp Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 There is creative, then there is dumb. The arbitor shall decide this apparently too. 1378978[/snapback] I'd have to go with creative based on the fact that Hutchinson is now a VIKING! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I'd have to go with creative based on the fact that Hutchinson is now a VIKING! 1379690[/snapback] +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 NFL | League could review transition-player process Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:17:16 -0800 The Associated Press reports Minnesota Vikings OG Steve Hutchinson and his agent, Tom Condon, might have turned the NFL's "transition tag" term into a matter to review. Hutchinson, who was the Seattle Seahawks' All-Pro transition player, officially became a Minnesota Viking on Tuesday, March 21, in a deal that could pay him $49 million over seven years, with $16 million guaranteed. However, the way in which they got there could prompt the league in to review the transition-player process after the apparent loophole that Condon used to maximize Hutchinson's worth. "I don't think it's a loophole as much as a utilization of the rules," Condon said Monday, March 20. "The rule is that anything not prohibited is allowed." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 NFL | League could review transition-player processTue, 21 Mar 2006 14:17:16 -0800 The Associated Press reports Minnesota Vikings OG Steve Hutchinson and his agent, Tom Condon, might have turned the NFL's "transition tag" term into a matter to review. Hutchinson, who was the Seattle Seahawks' All-Pro transition player, officially became a Minnesota Viking on Tuesday, March 21, in a deal that could pay him $49 million over seven years, with $16 million guaranteed. However, the way in which they got there could prompt the league in to review the transition-player process after the apparent loophole that Condon used to maximize Hutchinson's worth. "I don't think it's a loophole as much as a utilization of the rules," Condon said Monday, March 20. "The rule is that anything not prohibited is allowed." 1380877[/snapback] Except the slime ball didn't it use it to maximize Hutch's worth. Given the same contract, Hutch would earn more playing for the Hawks. You know, from playing in those playoff games he won't be getting with the Vikings. 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.