bushwacked Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Link I'm not going to judge them and say I am surprised, but it was significantly different," Brzezinski said of the Seahawks' contract with Burleson. "Hutchinson was a legitimate contract dollar-wise and that guarantee provision can trigger, whereas the Seattle deal is a total sham." Well Burleson's contract is a sham (dollar-wise) but is he actually irked at the poison pill provision? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Link I'm not going to judge them and say I am surprised, but it was significantly different," Brzezinski said of the Seahawks' contract with Burleson. "Hutchinson was a legitimate contract dollar-wise and that guarantee provision can trigger, whereas the Seattle deal is a total sham." Well Burleson's contract is a sham (dollar-wise) but is he actually irked at the poison pill provision? 1398220[/snapback] Brzezinski has brass balls to be saying this. Hey, Megan Fox, you started it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Brzezinski has brass balls to be saying this. Hey, Megan Fox, you started it. 1398258[/snapback] How do you know Hutch's agent did not put that in the contract or asked to have it in the contract because he was pissed at the Seahawks organization? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 How do you know Hutch's agent did not put that in the contract or asked to have it in the contract because he was pissed at the Seahawks organization? 1398652[/snapback] That could have happened. But how does the make Brzezinski's crying about the Burleson deal any less ludicrous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I found it: If another player has a higher figure, the clause guarantees the entire $49 million contract, making it one of the richest deals in league history. The stipulation was inserted by Hutchinson's agent, Tom Condon, and agreed to by the Vikings, as a tool to prevent the Seahawks from matching the offer -- which is their right under the NFL's rules for transition players. http://www.startribune.com/510/story/314728.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 That could have happened. But how does the make Brzezinski's crying about the Burleson deal any less ludicrous? 1398657[/snapback] Everybody keeps blaming the Vikings organization. They just agreed to it. Hutchs agent put it in there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 Everybody keeps blaming the Vikings organization. They just agreed to it. Hutchs agent put it in there... 1398664[/snapback] Well, I don't really blame the Vikings for taking advantage of a chiken$hit loophole, but that is a pretty weak defense. The Vikings knew exactly what they were doing, just as the Seahawks did with the Burleson signing. Why is the Vikings vice-president crying about the Seahawks signing Burleson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Again Childress makes a mistake. Can't frikin wait for this season I'm starting to hate the Vikings over the Raiders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 (edited) There's one big difference between the two 7 year 49 mill contracts. While I'm not saying this makes one valid and the other one not, but there is a difference. Hutch's money is real. Regardless of any poison pill, the money is for 7 years, 49 mill. Barring a career ending injury, the Vikes plan on him being their starting guard for the next 7 years and plan on him earning that 49 mill by the end of the 7 year contract. There's no ridiculous back loaded money at the end of the contract that he will never see. No ridiculous cap numbers that might force a team to cut a player if he doesn't renegotiate regardless if he is still playing well or not. After the first year, the cap hit to the Vikes each year for Hutch's contract averages around 5 mill a year. Definetly an acceptable cap number for a pro bowl player. Burlesons 7 year, 49 mill contract on the other hand....I know it, you know it, Burleson knows it and the Seahawks know it...the Hawks poison pill guarantees money the Vikes would have to pay, that's plainly obvious to everyone that the Hawks have no intention of paying. I'm not saying that necessarily makes the Hawks poison pill illegal, just pointing out to those that are saying, Ha, the Hawks did the same thing the Vikes did, what's the problem? You're wrong, there is a difference in what the two teams did with their "poison pills." Edited April 2, 2006 by BillyBalata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 (edited) There's one big difference between the two 7 year 49 mill contracts. While I'm not saying this makes one valid and the other one not, but there is a difference. Hutch's money is real. Regardless of any poison pill, the money is for 7 years, 49 mill. Barring a career ending injury, the Vikes plan on him being their starting guard for the next 7 years and plan on him earning that 49 mill by the end of the 7 year contract. There's no ridiculous back loaded money at the end of the contract that he will never see. No ridiculous cap numbers that might force a team to cut a player if he doesn't renegotiate regardless if he is still playing well or not. After the first year, the cap hit to the Vikes each year for Hutch's contract averages around 5 mill a year. Definetly an acceptable cap number for a pro bowl player. Burlesons 7 year, 49 mill contract on the other hand....I know it, you know it, Burleson knows it and the Seahawks know it...the Hawks poison pill guarantees money the Vikes would have to pay, that's plainly obvious to everyone that the Hawks have no intention of paying. I'm not saying that necessarily makes the Hawks poison pill illegal, just pointing out to those that are saying, Ha, the Hawks did the same thing the Vikes did, what's the problem? You're wrong, there is a difference in what the two teams did with their "poison pills." 1398695[/snapback] Billy, you're rationalizing. The clause was put in the contract by Hutch's agent right enough but agreed to by the Vikings. There is a law term called "common cause" that does not permit differentiation between the one with the idea and accessories who agree to go along. That clause was put together specifically to force the Seahawks not to match (because they already have Jones). Therefore it was aimed at one club and one club only. It's underhand, whichever way you look at it. The Seahawks were less interested in landing Burleson, IMO, than being a deliberate pain in the ass to the Vikings and it's clear from all the self-righteous babble from Brzezinski that it worked and worked well. Edited April 2, 2006 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 to any vikes fan trying to defend hutch's contract as some sort of legitimate contract, and then turn around and whine about burleson's. have a little f*ckin shame. i have to think i'm pretty impartial here. i'm not a fan of either team, and i don't really have a rooting interest against either team (at least not since seattle left the AFC west). but the vikes in all of this strike me as short-sightedly f*cking the rest of the league by starting this poison pill nonsense, and then turning around and whining like little b*cthes about having the same exact tactic turned around on them. because their underhanded move was a little more subtle? the intent was exactly the same, and seattle intentionally made their move ridiculous specifically to point at the can of worms the vikes opened. the vikes singlehandedly rendered the transition tag and restricted free agency worthless for the rest of the teams in the league. and now they have the nerve to whine about the ramifications coming back on them? maybe they should talk some more chit in the papers about their former players now. what a classless crew. and from what i'm seeing here, their fans aren't any better. they all deserve the total suckitude coming down the pike for that franchise for the next few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 The point being is the NFL and/or the arbritrator should have blown the Hutchinson deal out of the water. They didn't and it's not good for the NFL. Now Seattle signed Burleson to an identical contract in theory only with a bunch of ridiculous provisions about playing in Minnesota and matching RB salaries. Regardless how asinine the contract and poison pills in the Burleson signing were, the intent of both teams was equal and unfortunately effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I sure ain't as smart as you two guys that's for sure. But I am surprised two smart guys like you two can't appreciate someone being smart enough to see a loophole and use it to their advantage to get what they wanted. You think its underhanded. Fine by me. Seems kind of self righteous to me to claim something is underhanded that is totally legal. All I was trying to do in my post is point out to those who are saying it's the same thing, it's not. Some don't seem to see that. I agree, the Hawks poison pill was their way of making sure the league and eveyone else got their point and this needs to be looked at in the off-season. I don't have any problem with them doing that. Although, kind of whiney on their part to figure they had to to make it so ridiculous if you ask me. The Vikes offer was deemed ok by those in charge. Regardless of whatever anyone thinks of their "underhandedness". The Hawks offer, while probably ok too...does come closer to crossing the line then the Vikes, and I think thats all Brez is pointing out. If they were really being all that whiney and underhanded they could have appealed themselves and tied Seattle up another day or two with this whole fiasco. Obvouisly they learned from Denny Green on how to take the high road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedroz13 Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Who cares? The bottom line is this : Hutchinson is much better as his position than Burleson. Vikings signed a top player at the position while Seattle signed a decent player to an undeserving contract. Burleson made out like a bandit because Seattle was mad at MN for honoring a stipulation Hutchinson's agent threw in. Who cares anymore? I mean barring injury nobody can argue that Hutch is more valuable than Burleson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Who cares? The bottom line is this : Hutchinson is much better as his position than Burleson. Vikings signed a top player at the position while Seattle signed a decent player to an undeserving contract. Burleson made out like a bandit because Seattle was mad at MN for honoring a stipulation Hutchinson's agent threw in. Who cares anymore? I mean barring injury nobody can argue that Hutch is more valuable than Burleson. 1398930[/snapback] Burleson's contract is NOT for $49m over 7 years, don't forget. In fact, it's about right for who and what he is. The $49m was there simply to reinforce the point the Seahawks were making to the Vikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 Burleson made out like a bandit because Seattle was mad at MN for honoring a stipulation Hutchinson's agent threw in. 1398930[/snapback] Burleson signed what amounts to a four-year, $14.5 million offer with the Seahawks as a restricted free agent one week ago. Seems about right to me. 4 years at $14.5 millions dollars is less than Hutchinson will be making this year alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilwoman Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Whatever....I just cant wait until these guys play each other...should be one hell of a game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehand Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Whatever....I just cant wait until these guys play each other...should be one hell of a game. 1399187[/snapback] Seahawks 41 - Vikings 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Burleson made out like a bandit because Seattle was mad at MN for honoring a stipulation Hutchinson's agent threw in. 1398930[/snapback] nope. in the 4 years, 14.5 million, he actually got LESS than the vikes were reportedly offering, because he WANTED to go home and play in seattle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dread Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Burleson should fit in really well. He was a little dinged up last yeat and the Vikes passing game was horrible for the 1st half of the year. Burleson can be really elusive after the catch and will be a nice complement to DJax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilwoman Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Seahawks 41 - Vikings 17 1399203[/snapback] Me likie... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Two years from now when the Vikings are playing for the Super Bowl and the Seahawks are beginning to rebuild come talk to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Two years from now when the Vikings are playing for the Super Bowl and the Seahawks are beginning to rebuild come talk to me... 1400443[/snapback] ok, i'll put it in my calendar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 ok, i'll put it in my calendar 1400459[/snapback] good, do that... I will put it on mine... so we agree, we will both put this date of two years on our calanders... it's settled... calanders set... good... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VikesGuy Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I would say 100% of the people bashing the Vikes for finding a loop hole and using it are just plain ridiculous Say you found a loop hole in the tax laws and you found out you could get away without paying any taxes for the year. I am pretty sure you would all do it!!! I give the Hawks props for comming up with deal to steal Burleson. Good for them, this will be the last year the Posion Pill will work, and i think the Vikes got the better end of it. Hutch and a Third round pick for Burleson. Attention Vikes fans!!! We got the better end of the deal! Both wanted out, both went where they wanted to be. Isn't that what free agency is all about? Screw the tags all together you want a guy to stay, KEEP HIM HAPPY!!! 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.