bigbadwolf Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Mar 20, 2006 2:56 pm Special master rules against Hawks | Subscribe "Special master" Stephen Burbank ruled against the NFL Management Council and the Seahawks today in their attempt to match the Vikings' offer to LG Steve Hutchinson under altered terms. That means the Seahawks have until midnight tonight EST to match the Vikings' offer to Pro Bowl LG Steve Hutchinson, or he will become a Viking. A clause in the offer called for the full $49 million to become guaranteed if Hutchinson weren't the highest-paid offensive lineman on his team in 2006. The Seahawks tried to get around that be reworking the deal of LT Walter Jones. They had also apparently tried to alter terms of the offer in some way. "Special master Stephen Burbank has determined that the additional language that the Seahawks proposed to include in the Steve Hutchinson contract would alter a principle term of the Vikings' offer sheet," league spokesman Michael Signora said today. "The Seahawks have until midnight Eastern to decide if they'll match the original offer sheet." Posted by mikesando Mar 20, 2006 2:56 pm http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilwoman Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Mar 20, 2006 2:56 pm Special master rules against Hawks | Subscribe "Special master" Stephen Burbank ruled against the NFL Management Council and the Seahawks today in their attempt to match the Vikings' offer to LG Steve Hutchinson under altered terms. That means the Seahawks have until midnight tonight EST to match the Vikings' offer to Pro Bowl LG Steve Hutchinson, or he will become a Viking. A clause in the offer called for the full $49 million to become guaranteed if Hutchinson weren't the highest-paid offensive lineman on his team in 2006. The Seahawks tried to get around that be reworking the deal of LT Walter Jones. They had also apparently tried to alter terms of the offer in some way. "Special master Stephen Burbank has determined that the additional language that the Seahawks proposed to include in the Steve Hutchinson contract would alter a principle term of the Vikings' offer sheet," league spokesman Michael Signora said today. "The Seahawks have until midnight Eastern to decide if they'll match the original offer sheet." Posted by mikesando Mar 20, 2006 2:56 pm http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/ 1379027[/snapback] I think they would have been better off not restructuring WJ deal. Perhaps then they would have ruled in favor. Looks like the Vikings are going to get Hutch...Oh well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Time to up the offer to Abraham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I think a would be aproppriate right about now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 (edited) Paul Allen probably has $49 million sitting in petty cash. They'll get it done one way or the other imo. Jones makes 7.5 million. If nothing else Hutch will make a little more than Walter, but will work on other options I'm sure. Edited March 20, 2006 by Randall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Paul Allen probably has $49 million sitting in petty cash. They'll get it done one way or the other imo. 1379065[/snapback] Hope not, I think the money would be better served else where. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I think they would have been better off not restructuring WJ deal. Perhaps then they would have ruled in favor. Looks like the Vikings are going to get Hutch...Oh well... 1379048[/snapback] Bet teams wont try and save a lil cash and not use the franchise tag next time to get 2 1s. No way Minny pays 2 1s for Hutch, and the Hawks would probably jump at the chance to take those 1s if they did. But they got cheap tried to save 500K, and it is going to cost them one way or the other. Either a huge risk of guaranteeing the contract, or they lose him for nothing. personally, Id match out of spite. then offer him to the highest bidder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Paul Allen probably has $49 million sitting in petty cash. They'll get it done one way or the other imo. 1379065[/snapback] Pretty big risk if they do. If he goes out and has a career ending injury this year, then Seattle would be on the hook the following year for the rest of the contract, which would be 42 mill. They can't put themselves in that position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 As much as it pains me to say it, the more I hear about it the more I think the structuring of this deal was pretty brilliant on the part of the Vikes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadwolf Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 Sgt, you are wrong. The 500k savings would be nice, but is not the main reason the Hawks went with the transition tag. They didn't want to pay a guard top 5 TACKLE money this year that the franchise tag would have required, and also risk not getting a long term deal done and having him sit out camp. Walter Jones did that for the past three years. Hawks werent going down that road again. Having a one year contract does nothing but kill your cap and make your long term future uncertain. IMO they had to go with the transition tag, and most times that would have worked as they had the cap to match any reasonable offer. But Minny made a HUGE offer, possibly an overpriced offer, and most importantly made a very unique poison pill that screwed the Hawks. I'm sorry to see him go, but 7 mil is too much for a guard. I just think this poison pill clause kills the use of a transition tag for any team in the future, but what do I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 As much as it pains me to say it, the more I hear about it the more I think the structuring of this deal was pretty brilliant on the part of the Vikes... 1379084[/snapback] This isnt brilliant, this is bushleague. It may work, but this is bad precedent, because you can bet your ass an owner like Jerry Jones or Danny Snyder will use this repeatedly in the future and burn teams left and right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Pretty big risk if they do. If he goes out and has a career ending injury this year, then Seattle would be on the hook the following year for the rest of the contract, which would be 42 mill. They can't put themselves in that position. 1379082[/snapback] True, but can they insure it? The other option would be be paying Hutch $1 more than Walter. They hurt themselves by trying to save money rathyer than franchising the guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 This isnt brilliant, this is bushleague. It may work, but this is bad precedent, because you can bet your ass an owner like Jerry Jones or Danny Snyder will use this repeatedly in the future and burn teams left and right. 1379087[/snapback] Maybe. It does open a can of worms in regards to how you structure deals that another team can be competitive with. It seems like the Vikes found a way get around the spirit of the rules. May not be right, but they were certainly being creative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 True, but can they insure it? The other option would be be paying Hutch $1 more than Walter. They hurt themselves by trying to save money rathyer than franchising the guy. 1379088[/snapback] I would guess, yea, they could get some kind of policy so they don't have to actually pay that amount out in cash, but from what they are saying on the radio, they would still have that 42 mill applied towards their salary cap for that one year. No team can take a 42 mill hit to the cap for a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 As a Sea fan- and as dominating a guard as Hutch is- he is not worth what that contract. With Walt sitting at LT- they will be able to plug a servicable guard and Walt's dominance help him. Hutch is a guard - and you overpay that much- it will hurt the team in other spots. He definately DOES NOT deserve more than Walter- and Sea can spend som emoney and upgrade the D now- will work out just fine IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 i think this is a horse chit ruling, and opens up a whole potential array of ridiculous restricted free agent contracts. trying to sign a restricted free agent who plays for the colts? include a trigger that says all the money is guaranteed if he's not the highest payed player on the team whose last name starts with "M", or if he's not the highest paid player on his team who went to tennessee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 This isnt brilliant, this is bushleague. It may work, but this is bad precedent, because you can bet your ass an owner like Jerry Jones or Danny Snyder will use this repeatedly in the future and burn teams left and right. 1379087[/snapback] I agree. My fear is highly paid lawyers will structure deals that get resolved in hearings or in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 i think this is a horse chit ruling, and opens up a whole potential array of ridiculous restricted free agent contracts. trying to sign a restricted free agent who plays for the colts? include a trigger that says all the money is guaranteed if he's not the highest payed player on the team whose last name starts with "M", or if he's not the highest paid player on his team who went to tennessee. 1379098[/snapback] Yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I think a would be aproppriate right about now. 1379061[/snapback] Yeah baby! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Don't know why I am at all suprised though. A slime ball law professor was ruling on a clause written by slime ball lawyers and a slime ball agent. Not that I really have a problem with the Vikings getting Hutch at that price. Like some of the other Hawk fans here, I don't think it is a good use of Seattle's money. And I'll be laughing my ass off if he turns out to be no better than solid when playing next to a tackle not named Jones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadwolf Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 Yeah baby! 1379103[/snapback] Enjoy your 49 million dollar guard. I love Hutch, but he ain't worth 49 million. IMO the ONLY reason the Hawks would have paid it is because our SB time is NOW, they have maybe a 2-3 yr window. Willing to overpay to keep the core together. If they were in the Vikings stage in regards to where the team is at, no way would they have paid any guard 7 million a year. Hutch will look nice as he holds his section of the line as your right side of the line leads the defenders through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehand Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Yep, See ya, Hutch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 (edited) Yeah baby! 1379103[/snapback] They have until midnight to decide and may find a legal reason to take to court. In the end Minnesota may lose a week or two before they know they don't get Hutch. We shall see. If they lose out I'll bet they find a way to stick it to the Vikings later. Edited March 21, 2006 by Randall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 (edited) i think this is a horse chit ruling, and opens up a whole potential array of ridiculous restricted free agent contracts. trying to sign a restricted free agent who plays for the colts? include a trigger that says all the money is guaranteed if he's not the highest payed player on the team whose last name starts with "M", or if he's not the highest paid player on his team who went to tennessee. 1379098[/snapback] You are comparing apples to oranges. A team that signs a RFA has to give up compensation if the original does not match. A transitional tag is now worthless...No teams will probably use it anymore. Edit: Is it strange only one person was designated as a transition player? Edited March 21, 2006 by Outshined Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dread Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Enjoy your 49 million dollar guard. I love Hutch, but he ain't worth 49 million. IMO the ONLY reason the Hawks would have paid it is because our SB time is NOW, they have maybe a 2-3 yr window. Willing to overpay to keep the core together. If they were in the Vikings stage in regards to where the team is at, no way would they have paid any guard 7 million a year. Hutch will look nice as he holds his section of the line as your right side of the line leads the defenders through. 1379116[/snapback] So had the restructuring of Jone's contract had worked and Hutch returned to Seattle you would have been trumpeting up and down how he isn't worth $49 million? Keep rationalizing...eventually you may convince yourself. 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.