CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 If you call Chester Taylor, Tony Richardson and Brad Johnson your starting backfield, I hardly call that rebuilding. But if you do, more power to ya.... 1379454[/snapback] To be honest, I was pretty dissapointed they did not make a serious run at Edge myself. It's going to be a rough couple of years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Rome wasn't built in a day, but I bet TO could have torn it down in 2 or 3. 1379466[/snapback] TO basically signed 3 1 yr contracts. Dallas can cut him after any season and face only a small penalty if they do. TO will be on his best behavior for 1 yr, and then he will be shown the door if he acts up. TO doesnt worry me, its how Parcells plans to use him that will be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 The stipulation that Hutch has to be the highest paid olinemen on the team is only for the first year of the contract. So yea, I think the Vikes will probably forget about it. 1379475[/snapback] If this is true it is in contrast to everything I have heard locally. It has been reported here that if at any time in the contract he is not the highest paid lineman on his team, the rest of the contract is guaranteed. In response to Walter Jones offering to lower his # to make it less than Hutch's, the "Grand whatever" ruled against the Hawks in this matter as well. Something along the lines of how the official season started March 11, and Jones was still higher paid than Hutch. Someone else said that no lineman is worth 49 million and the Vikings are stupid to take on that kind of contract. Of course, however, if Hutch is a Viking and not the highest paid lineman on his team, the contract is not guaranteed and they can release him. There is no way he sees more than 30 million of it before he/they have to restructure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 If this is true it is in contrast to everything I have heard locally. It has been reported here that if at any time in the contract he is not the highest paid lineman on his team, the rest of the contract is guaranteed. In response to Walter Jones offering to lower his # to make it less than Hutch's, the "Grand whatever" ruled against the Hawks in this matter as well. Something along the lines of how the official season started March 11, and Jones was still higher paid than Hutch. Someone else said that no lineman is worth 49 million and the Vikings are stupid to take on that kind of contract. Of course, however, if Hutch is a Viking and not the highest paid lineman on his team, the contract is not guaranteed and they can release him. There is no way he sees more than 30 million of it before he/they have to restructure. 1379498[/snapback] I've heard that Hutch only has to be the highest paid OL from 3/11/06 to 3/11/07. The first year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moss6 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 If this is true it is in contrast to everything I have heard locally. It has been reported here that if at any time in the contract he is not the highest paid lineman on his team, the rest of the contract is guaranteed. In response to Walter Jones offering to lower his # to make it less than Hutch's, the "Grand whatever" ruled against the Hawks in this matter as well. Something along the lines of how the official season started March 11, and Jones was still higher paid than Hutch. Someone else said that no lineman is worth 49 million and the Vikings are stupid to take on that kind of contract. Of course, however, if Hutch is a Viking and not the highest paid lineman on his team, the contract is not guaranteed and they can release him. There is no way he sees more than 30 million of it before he/they have to restructure. 1379498[/snapback] Kevin Seifert, Star TribuneLast 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. Nothing guaranteed after this year only. Strange deal indeed. But certainly not underhanded. This type of option is open to anyone who put the money up including the other 4-5 teams who had similar cap room. Seattle would be crazy to spend that money, but MN needed to. This has the Zygie stamp all over it, after all he is trying to get a new stadium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 (edited) Steve Hutchinson speaks. Edit: He said the Seahawks were either unwilling or unwanting to offer him a contract. Edited March 22, 2006 by Outshined Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Steve Hutchinson speaks. Edit: He said the Seahawks were either unwilling or unwanting to offer him a contract. 1381128[/snapback] So he was bitter that the Seahawks didn't give him what he wanted with out a market index. So the Seahawks, in good faith, said go find your market value and we will match what ever it was. So then he and his agent decided that wasn't good enough for them, and out of spite did this. Everything he is saying in that interview is crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Nothing guaranteed after this year only. Strange deal indeed. But certainly not underhanded. This type of option is open to anyone who put the money up including the other 4-5 teams who had similar cap room. Seattle would be crazy to spend that money, but MN needed to. This has the Zygie stamp all over it, after all he is trying to get a new stadium 1379528[/snapback] This isn't underhanded?? So Minnesota has to pay the guy 10 million or whatever and he is their property. In order for the Seahawks to match, they have to pay him 49 million. How is that matching?? An underhanded, impossible deal. I don't even know why I'm arguing, I'm not in the least bitter. Later Hutch. I'm sure Minnesota in the winter is heaven when you're two and nine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 I don't even know why I'm arguing, I'm not in the least bitter. Later Hutch. I'm sure Minnesota in the winter is heaven when you're two and nine. 1381285[/snapback] I disagree here. I am not bitter that he is leaving. I am, on the other hand, quite bitter that he and his agent pulled what they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 I disagree here. I am not bitter that he is leaving. I am, on the other hand, quite bitter that he and his agent pulled what they did. 1381335[/snapback] whatever. He's a left freaking guard. have fun on the love boat, watchin us in the playoffs on tv. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 whatever. He's a left freaking guard. have fun on the love boat, watchin us in the playoffs on tv. 1381422[/snapback] huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moss6 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 This isn't underhanded?? So Minnesota has to pay the guy 10 million or whatever and he is their property. In order for the Seahawks to match, they have to pay him 49 million. How is that matching?? An underhanded, impossible deal. I don't even know why I'm arguing, I'm not in the least bitter. Later Hutch. I'm sure Minnesota in the winter is heaven when you're two and nine. 1381285[/snapback] I should clarify. The Vikings did nothing underhanded, they just put up the money. Hutch and Condon screwed Seattle by putting that language in the offer sheet. Not exactly the first team to have a disgruntled player (ie...Duante) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 The Vikings did nothing underhanded, they just put up the money. Hutch and Condon screwed Seattle by putting that language in the offer sheet.1381723[/snapback] well, it's in the player's interest to make the money guaranteed. hutchinson and his agent no doubt realized the guarantee clause would be a tough pill for the hawks to swallow, but without a doubt their dream scenario here would have been for hutch to remain a seahawk at $50 million guaranteed. this isn't an example of a player trying to hose his old team, it's about one team doing everything possible to pry away a player, and that player doing everything possible to maximize his income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moss6 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 well, it's in the player's interest to make the money guaranteed. hutchinson and his agent no doubt realized the guarantee clause would be a tough pill for the hawks to swallow, but without a doubt their dream scenario here would have been for hutch to remain a seahawk at $50 million guaranteed. this isn't an example of a player trying to hose his old team, it's about one team doing everything possible to pry away a player, and that player doing everything possible to maximize his income. 1382063[/snapback] True, he may have wished to stay in Seattle but he had a funny way of showing it. Zygie just opened up his wallet for a position which was extremely important for them to fill. Did they overpay for him, probably. Time will tell, but it was an opportunity that could not be passed up since they had so much cap room. Point being is that Hutch has every right to maximize his future, but he did it intentionally so that Seattle would not be able to match it with the clause that he and Condon put in (it would have been invalid if MN wrote it into the contract). MN obviously took advantage of that particular point alone, who wouldn’t? Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones? Al Davis? Ok, maybe not Davis since he is living in a time warp circa 25 years ago. I just do not see it as taking advantage of Seattle as much as an opportunity for MN. If he truly wanted to go back he would have just left the clause out and taken a big pay raise when Seattle matched the offer sheet. Simple as that. Seattle got a little self confident that they would get him back for less than the Franchise tag would have cost them. Piching pennies came back and bite them when they could have signed him for and extra $500g last year. BTW - I think Seattle is probably better off not spending the money to match. They have some young bodies that can plug that hole next to Jones and they can use that cash to fill their priority needs and keep hope alive that they will get lucky and make the playoffs again 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.