Moss6 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 LINK Burleson's offer comes complete with a couple provisions that will be impossible to swallow. The whole deal becomes guaranteed if Burleson is to play more than five games in the state of Minnesota. There's a second provision that involves Burleson's salary compared to the running backs on the team that is also the basis for a poison pill. Call them a pair of poison pills. Try not to choke on the irony. 1387003[/snapback] Heard this on the way home tonight. I guess the triangle of authority will try to restructure Chester’s salary with a couple of dummy years and also petition all of their games to be played in Iowa this season. Sorry to see you go Nate, you were a good guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 (edited) Anyone else not a fan of these new "poison pill" contracts? As far as I am concerned, there is already too much BS due to agents/lawyers/etc. Perhaps I am overreacting, but it seems like this is kind of a slippery slope and plays right into the hands of scumbags like Rosenhaus who will use any dirty tactics they can. Edit: Oops. Sorry Dread. I see you have already mentioned this in your earlier posts. Edited March 24, 2006 by Delicious_bass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 So Basically - it was a trade: Steve Hutchinson 3rd round pick for Nate Burleson I'll take it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 IMO - 5.5 Million Gauranteed is waaaay too much money for Burleson. 1386963[/snapback] Maybe, but we are in a day and age when teams are guaranteening 16 million to a guard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 to seatle for making a point(mochery sp?) on the poison pill ruling also to add I am not a hawks homer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 So Basically - it was a trade: Steve Hutchinson 3rd round pick for Nate Burleson I'll take it... 1387063[/snapback] Seahawks will take it as well!!! Don't forget about the cash!!! The Seahawks get Nate Burleson AND Julian Peterson. Have our left guard. Nate'll be catchin balls deep in the playoffs and our ex left guard will be ice fishing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Maybe, but we are in a day and age when teams are guaranteening 16 million to a guard. 1387112[/snapback] :doah: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 (edited) to seatle for making a point(mochery sp?) on the poison pill ruling also to add I am not a hawks homer 1387124[/snapback] I think they messed up on the way they did it in an attempt to be overly blatent. They should have written it as more than 7 games in an enclosed stadium a year. Then they couldn't have claimed it is a direct attack on the Vikes (if they do), and the Seahawks will never play more than a couple indoors each year. Edited March 25, 2006 by NoSupe4You Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 They can probably prove the validity of the running back clause though. You can't be maintaining a quality offense if all the rb combined do not make the salary of the #2 receiver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Maybe, but we are in a day and age when teams are guaranteening 16 million to a guard. 1387112[/snapback] It's not as HUGH as you make it sound. Inflation you know? Afterall with the cap over $100 million a year and rising, $16 million is going to look like chump change in a couple of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 (edited) Seahawks will take it as well!!! Don't forget about the cash!!! The Seahawks get Nate Burleson AND Julian Peterson. Have our left guard. Nate'll be catchin balls deep in the playoffs and our ex left guard will be ice fishing. 1387181[/snapback] That about sums up my thoughts on it as well. Hutch is great but assuming I was given an option before the Seahawks lost him to choose between Burleson and Peterson OR keeping Hutch; I'd go with B & P. Sorry Hutch. Edited March 25, 2006 by TheGrunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehand Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 (edited) They should have written it as more than 7 games in an enclosed stadium a year. Then they couldn't have claimed it is a direct attack on the Vikes (if they do), and the Seahawks will never play more than a couple indoors each year. 1387191[/snapback] Why would they do that? It IS a blatant, direct attack on the Vikings, as well as a CBA that would allow such poison pills to exist. Make no mistake, The Hawks are pissed, & taking pointed steps with this ridiculous offer sheet to make sure that this kind of thing gets fixed so it doesn't happen anymore. I think it is awesome that the Hawks aren't taking the Hutch loss lying down. Edited March 25, 2006 by Bonehand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I think it is awesome that the Hawks didn't aren't taking the Hutch loss lying down. 1387658[/snapback] Yeah its probably a good thing to show the league. The 1st poison pill will not stand up in court as it has nothing to do with principle. The second one probably would though. Thats why I think the are trying to say something to the league about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 morans...this contract is NOT going to pay burleson $49 million. they structured it obviously has to be restructured after a couple years. UNLESS the whole contract is guaranteed, i.e. if the vikes match. the hawks wouldnt have done this if it didnt make football sense and economic sense for their team. once they determined it did, they made the whole deal as absurd as possible to make a point. the state of washington garbage, the exact amount of hutch's contract. now you're seeing why the league should have blown that bullchit out of the water with the hutchinson deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 now you're seeing why the league should have blown that bullchit out of the water with the hutchinson deal. 1387842[/snapback] Exactly. The Burleson deal is silly, but the Seahawks have made a very valid point that the NFL needs to address. 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.