bigbadwolf Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 The Seattle Seahawks offered to trade their third-round draft choice to Minnesota for receiver Nate Burleson. The Vikings demanded a second-round pick for the restricted free agent. That’s when things got out of hand. The Seahawks, still smarting from the disputed tactics Minnesota used in luring away Seattle guard Steve Hutchinson, offered Burleson a deal the Vikings almost certainly will not match. This is what he was transitioned at, a 3rd round pick. So we offered Minny fair value and they wanted more. Only after this did the Hawks decides to make a mockery of the Vikings offer to Hutch. source: http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/seaha...p-5043806c.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 The Seattle Seahawks offered to trade their third-round draft choice to Minnesota for receiver Nate Burleson. The Vikings demanded a second-round pick for the restricted free agent. That’s when things got out of hand. The Seahawks, still smarting from the disputed tactics Minnesota used in luring away Seattle guard Steve Hutchinson, offered Burleson a deal the Vikings almost certainly will not match. This is what he was transitioned at, a 3rd round pick. So we offered Minny fair value and they wanted more. Only after this did the Hawks decides to make a mockery of the Vikings offer to Hutch. source: http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/seaha...p-5043806c.html 1387739[/snapback] He is not under contract with the Vikings - we cannot ask for a second round pick. We tendered a 3rd round pick and that is in accordance with the CBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 He is not under contract with the Vikings - we cannot ask for a second round pick. We tendered a 3rd round pick and that is in accordance with the CBA. 1387740[/snapback] I that's true why would they want a second round pick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadwolf Posted March 25, 2006 Author Share Posted March 25, 2006 He is not under contract with the Vikings - we cannot ask for a second round pick. We tendered a 3rd round pick and that is in accordance with the CBA. 1387740[/snapback] I don't claim to be an expert at the CBA, but Mike Sando is the best Seahawk beat reporter in Seattle and it would be very unusual for him to mess up the facts of a story, so unless I see a correction to his story, I'd believe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I that's true why would they want a second round pick? 1387741[/snapback] I never heard that we asked for a second anywhere.... They slapped the lowest tender possible which is $712,000 per year. If any team takes it, we get the teams draft pick in the same round that Burleson was drafted. Thats the rules of the tender offer in the CBA. Maybe they can ask, but its definitly a third round pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I never heard that we asked for a second anywhere.... They slapped the lowest tender possible which is $712,000 per year. If any team takes it, we get the teams draft pick in the same round that Burleson was drafted. Thats the rules of the tender offer in the CBA. Maybe they can ask, but its definitly a third round pick. 1387743[/snapback] I know but thought that a team could remove it and trade him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadwolf Posted March 25, 2006 Author Share Posted March 25, 2006 With the language of the CBA, I'm sure it would be *possible* to agree to not match the Hawks offer in exchange of any picks/players. Apparently in this case it was a 2nd round request. Or the Vikings simply may have been willing to agree to whatever terms the Hawks and Burleson agreed to, match it and than trade him to the Hawks for 2nd rounder. The bottom line is if the Vikings did try to get a 2nd rounder out of the Hawks for player with a 3 rd tag on him, that is ballsy at best and just arrogant and moronic at worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I don't think they can change the tender once it is given to him. Vikings place qualifying offer on Burleson Judd Zulgad, Star Tribune Last update: March 02, 2006 – 11:40 PM Printer friendly E-mail this story Related Content The Vikings placed the lowest possible qualifying offer on restricted free agent Nate Burleson on Thursday, giving the receiver a tender that is worth $712,000 and would result in the team getting a draft pick equal to the round in which Burleson was selected (third) if he goes elsewhere. The move came on the same day the NFL extended its deadline for free agency by three days and resumed talks aimed at an extension of the collective bargaining agreement. Burleson's agent, Jack Scharf, did not seem discouraged by the Vikings' offer. "Negotiations will be ongoing to see if we can get a long-term deal for Nate," Scharf said. "More will come to light pending a ratification of the collective bargaining agreement." If Burleson receives an offer from another club, the Vikings would have seven days to match or let him go in exchange for a third-round selection. With an NFL-high $24 million in salary cap space, the Vikings are in an ideal position to either retain Burleson by matching or go into the open market and sign a free-agent receiver. Burleson, 24, is coming off a disappointing season in which he missed four games because of injury. Expected to play a key role in helping to replace Randy Moss, Burleson finished with 30 receptions for 328 yards and one touchdown in his third season. Nonetheless, he is ranked fourth among the available free-agent receivers by Scout.com. Cleveland, San Diego and San Francisco are three teams with salary cap space that might be interested in Burleson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I know but thought that a team could remove it and trade him. 1387747[/snapback] The Vikings can't trade him, he is a free agent and not under contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 The bottom line is if the Vikings did try to get a 2nd rounder out of the Hawks for player with a 3 rd tag on him, that is ballsy at best and just arrogant and moronic at worst. 1387752[/snapback] Yeah, so lets show them and pay the guy faaaaaaar too much. That'll teach them! Even Minnny, who lost a good #3 WR who had potential to be a decent #2, is snickering over this one. Welcome to a salary cap nightmare, SEA -- you sure showed them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Pat!!! Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 The Seahawks had sought to sign Burleson to a five-year, nearly $15 million deal contingent on the Vikings trading him to Seattle. If you read the entire article, I think it was going to be a sign and trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 The Seahawks had sought to sign Burleson to a five-year, nearly $15 million deal contingent on the Vikings trading him to Seattle. If you read the entire article, I think it was going to be a sign and trade. 1387759[/snapback] That makes sense then...Then it has nothing to do with the tender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadwolf Posted March 25, 2006 Author Share Posted March 25, 2006 Yeah, so lets show them and pay the guy faaaaaaar too much. That'll teach them! Even Minnny, who lost a good #3 WR who had potential to be a decent #2, is snickering over this one. Welcome to a salary cap nightmare, SEA -- you sure showed them! 1387757[/snapback] Well the way the salary cap is increasing each year, I don't think a 4 yr, 15 million dollar contract is too much for a #2 wr in an offense minded team. Clearly the Hawks think at 24 yrs old, he has much promise. The Vikings obviously didn't think that. Only a few years time will determine which team was correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 (edited) Yeah, so lets show them and pay the guy faaaaaaar too much. That'll teach them! Even Minnny, who lost a good #3 WR who had potential to be a decent #2, is snickering over this one. Welcome to a salary cap nightmare, SEA -- you sure showed them! 1387757[/snapback] Please explain. The deal is set up for only 5 million guaranteed. How does that turn into a salary cap nightmare? From the posted article: Hutchinson’s deal included $16 million in first-year bonuses and a realistic chance of earning much of the total value. It’s a seven-year, $49 million deal in name and fact. Not so with the Burleson offer. The former standout at O’Dea High School in Seattle is guaranteed $5.25 million in a deal that will be terminated or reworked after a few seasons. Edited March 25, 2006 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider.Nation Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Yeah, so lets show them and pay the guy faaaaaaar too much. That'll teach them! Even Minnny, who lost a good #3 WR who had potential to be a decent #2, is snickering over this one. Welcome to a salary cap nightmare, SEA -- you sure showed them! 1387757[/snapback] I'm pretty sure that this contract will be extremely back end loaded. With all the big money coming in the final 2 years. Giving the Seahawks plenty of time to cut this bumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I'm pretty sure that this contract will be extremely back end loaded. With all the big money coming in the final 2 years. Giving the Seahawks plenty of time to cut this bumb. 1387792[/snapback] We can only hope you are right. Although maybe all of the Seahawks bad luck ended with the Superbowl and Burleson will help the team! eh!? ..eh!? ...oh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 $49 million for Burleson?? The Seahawks are insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 $49 million for Burleson?? The Seahawks are insane. 1387813[/snapback] Hook may be onto something ... Sure, the backend loading makes this less damaging -- I'll grant you that. Sooooo the point is the seahawks are simply suckering him in and just plan on cutting him in a year or two? Or perhaps he knows they are doing this and just needs the ego job of the big number even though he'll never see it? Unfortunately, it's true that both of these scenarios happen the way some teams, players, agents do business ... But, c'mon, seven years - $49 million for Burleson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 The 7-year 49 million dollar deal and the poison pill statements are a statment to the league and a shot at the Vikings. The guaranteed $$ and the nature of the first few years of the contract are the only thing that matters cap wise. Isn't this fairly obvious to most NFL fans? I'm guessing that Burleson will likely play for 2-3 seasons for the Hawks for about 5 million a year, and it can be argued that it is too much. It's not like these sort of contracts are unusual. The Hutuchinson deal appears to be structured in a way that is more damaging to the Vikings salary cap short term and long term. A long time and lot of money for a guard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I did not realize it was heavily backloaded. Makes sense to do that, especially with the "poison pill" clause, because the Vikings can't match it. It's actually brilliant, IMO. I just read the numbers and was like . Burleson ain't worth that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 ...last I checked niether is Hutch. But maybe I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 The 7-year 49 million dollar deal and the poison pill statements are a statment to the league and a shot at the Vikings. The guaranteed $$ and the nature of the first few years of the contract are the only thing that matters cap wise. Isn't this fairly obvious to most NFL fans? I'm guessing that Burleson will likely play for 2-3 seasons for the Hawks for about 5 million a year, and it can be argued that it is too much. It's not like these sort of contracts are unusual. The Hutuchinson deal appears to be structured in a way that is more damaging to the Vikings salary cap short term and long term. A long time and lot of money for a guard. 1387829[/snapback] Bushwacked -- I think you're on the right track with your thinking, but it's impossible for anyone to nail down the cap ramifications of a deal like this without knowing the details of years 4-7. If the base salaries are large, then it would certainly kill the Seahawks to cut him. If the back ends are loaded with roster bonuses, then it won't hurt them much at all. I expect the latter to be true. Either way, as I said in the first thread about this, I'd bet money that the Seahawks already have a secondary agreement with Burleson -- "play for $5 million this year, then we'll give you another $5M bonus next year in exchange for a restructured deal." Assuming that's the case AND that Burleson's agent was smart enough to make his 2007 base salary high, then it's a win-win for Burleson and the 'Hawks. 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.