bushwacked Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 I've been involved in a heated discussion that has some ties to the discussions here. Everyone knows that Seattle signed Nate Burleson to a 7-year 49 million dollar contract that has widely been reported as "in reality, a 4-year 14.5 million dollar deal," with the last 3 years and 34.5 million completely voidable. Nate's guaranteed $$ was reported as 5.25 million which was to be paid as a 4 million dollar signing bonus and a the 1.25 million he was paid last year. A bunch of Seahawk homers are claiming that Seattle is, for the most part, free of any further financial implication to Nate or against the cap. I'm claiming since his contract was widely reported as 4-years/14.5 million, that is probably the actual $$$ that Seattle is realistically entitled against the cap and/or Nate. It seems to me that if the Hawks could clean their hands of him they would have already done so or at least restructured the remaining 9.5 million over the next 3 years. Can someone help me clarify the situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 The way I understand it, it is more of a 3-year, 14 million dollar contract, with the other three years thrown on for fun. They will keep him through the 2008 season and then cut him or restructure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 The way I understand it, it is more of a 3-year, 14 million dollar contract, with the other three years thrown on for fun. They will keep him through the 2008 season and then cut him or restructure. This sounds right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 I've been involved in a heated discussion that has some ties to the discussions here. Everyone knows that Seattle signed Nate Burleson to a 7-year 49 million dollar contract that has widely been reported as "in reality, a 4-year 14.5 million dollar deal," with the last 3 years and 34.5 million completely voidable. Nate's guaranteed $$ was reported as 5.25 million which was to be paid as a 4 million dollar signing bonus and a the 1.25 million he was paid last year. A bunch of Seahawk homers are claiming that Seattle is, for the most part, free of any further financial implication to Nate or against the cap. I'm claiming since his contract was widely reported as 4-years/14.5 million, that is probably the actual $$$ that Seattle is realistically entitled against the cap and/or Nate. It seems to me that if the Hawks could clean their hands of him they would have already done so or at least restructured the remaining 9.5 million over the next 3 years. Can someone help me clarify the situation? The real question is, Jerry Porter or Nate Burleson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebartender Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 The real question is, Jerry Porter or Nate Burleson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 The real question is, Jerry Porter or Nate Burleson? 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.